Phoenix XCVII: Forget it, Jake. It's Glendale.

kdb209 · Jul 6, 2013

Killion · Jul 6, 2013

hisgirlfriday said:
Couldn't they have done that at the draft?

Not likely, as it was just before July 2nd and the date of Glendales vote on the Lease. It just doesnt make sense. Had the BOG's voted to approve RSE & the terms, Fortress's loan, the NHL's $85M loan, approved RSE's cash equity of a mere (app) 30% down, approved the principals in Gosbee, LeBlanc, Dey & Jones, it wouldve been announced. Doesnt add-up. They split shares, forming IceArizona, and were, still are apparently trying to solicit further investors, and they too will require some vetting from the league.

Brodie · Jul 6, 2013

also the original title of Movie Night in Glendale :laugh:

Donwood · Jul 6, 2013

Killion said:
Not likely, as it was just before July 2nd and the date of Glendales vote on the Lease. It just doesnt make sense. Had the BOG's voted to approve RSE & the terms, Fortress's loan, the NHL's $85M loan, approved RSE's cash equity of a mere (app) 30% down, approved the principals in Gosbee, LeBlanc, Dey & Jones, it wouldve been announced. Doesnt add-up. They split shares, forming IceArizona, and were, still are apparently trying to solicit further investors, and they too will require some vetting from the league.

Ah vetting also known as no more Boots Del Biaggio please. Hmm,I wonder if Leblanc paid Boots a visit in the big house for some advice on attracting investors. :naughty:

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

Killion said:
Not likely, as it was just before July 2nd and the date of Glendales vote on the Lease. It just doesnt make sense. Had the BOG's voted to approve RSE & the terms, Fortress's loan, the NHL's $85M loan, approved RSE's cash equity of a mere (app) 30% down, approved the principals in Gosbee, LeBlanc, Dey & Jones, it wouldve been announced. Doesnt add-up. They split shares, forming IceArizona, and were, still are apparently trying to solicit further investors, and they too will require some vetting from the league.

Killion,

In a universe where things make sense, it would be appropriate for them to vet closely every investor.

However, as the thread title tells us, This Is Glendale's Universe. In GU, the NHL is so desperate to sell that every investor will automatically be approved. We all know this. And, if they come short, the league will up their 85M to whatever it takes. There is no common sense here at all.

Llama19 · Jul 6, 2013

Killion said:
Not likely, as it was just before July 2nd and the date of Glendales vote on the Lease. It just doesnt make sense. Had the BOG's voted to approve RSE & the terms, Fortress's loan, the NHL's $85M loan, approved RSE's cash equity of a mere (app) 30% down, approved the principals in Gosbee, LeBlanc, Dey & Jones, it wouldve been announced. Doesnt add-up. They split shares, forming IceArizona, and were, still are apparently trying to solicit further investors, and they too will require some vetting from the league.

None of the 'investors' have enough money.

They are getting their $15M 'down payment' from Glendale... :shakehead

kihekah19* · Jul 6, 2013

kdb209 said:
A web of deceit, corruption and ~~murder~~ bankruptcy - it's what you get from trying to bring [frozen] water to the desert ...

Actually frozen water is not brought here. It's typical water in it's liquid state (purified for aesthetics) that is frozen, right here in the hot desert! Modern refrigeration (not really that new), is something so many have a difficult time grasping.

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

So, to recap:

IA has put out a press release of some kind, or talked to the press and revealed that:
There will be ticket surcharges, but they will end up about the same as last year.

This means, quite obviously, that the promised "revenue streams" are not entirely new, but rather are, as Bowers and Birnbaum told the council, some that were already included. Which means that, although legally they look like replacement to bring the net-AMF closer to 6M, in actually, they will come out of the GF income from somewhere else. To put it bluntly, we may need a thread : SHERWOOD'S LIES. As, we all know that he is the one who is the mastermind behind the whole thing, and was able to pull the wool over Knaack, Martinez and Chavira.
I predict more to come on these "false" revenue streams. In fact, I predict that when we see the final draft, it will count all these things in the 'make whole' provision, so no matter what, Glendale is going to be out as much as the prior ticket surcharges were bringing in.

MOD

Llama19 · Jul 6, 2013

MNNumbers said:
So, to recap:

IA has put out a press release of some kind, or talked to the press and revealed that:
There will be ticket surcharges, but they will end up about the same as last year.

This means, quite obviously, that the promised "revenue streams" are not entirely new, but rather are, as Bowers and Birnbaum told the council, some that were already included. Which means that, although legally they look like replacement to bring the net-AMF closer to 6M, in actually, they will come out of the GF income from somewhere else. To put it bluntly, we may need a thread : SHERWOOD'S LIES. As, we all know that he is the one who is the mastermind behind the whole thing, and was able to pull the wool over Knaack, Martinez and Chavira.
I predict more to come on these "false" revenue streams. In fact, I predict that when we see the final draft, it will count all these things in the 'make whole' provision, so no matter what, Glendale is going to be out as much as the prior ticket surcharges were bringing in.

I'm awaiting the 'audit' results...

To quote:

"[Councilmember] Alvarez made a final comment concerning the independent audit of the city’s books.

“The audit is getting pretty close,” she said. “I’m not covering for anybody. I told them (the auditors) employees are coming to me as a group. I couldn’t believe all the stuff they were telling me, and I told the auditors.”"

Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/headlines/article_d7f30530-e413-11e2-8882-0019bb2963f4.html

davemac1313 · Jul 6, 2013

If the agreement calls for all these surcharges/parking etc to be passed back to the city to offset the additional 8.5 million that the city gives RSE in the form of "Arena Management Fees" was already coming to the team, with the exception of a nickel, that the team is now going to eat.......the math doesn't make sense. Other than the new parking lots that will be charging for parking (one already did charge). RSE gives all the revenue they would have got, + a nickel and then 20% of the naming rights and then rent, which they never paid basically under the old AMF......how does this math work? The revenue was already part of the business model, now its not...it goes to the city.

Can someone explain to me how this isn't just a shell game. The player in a shell game (COG) always walks away empty-handed, somehow.

The statement in the Republic is either way out of context, I am totally misunderstanding or this is some kind of scam where I say I'll pay a nickel out of my money for 8.5 million from you....

Can one of the math guys explain this to me?

kihekah19* · Jul 6, 2013

davemac1313 said:
If the agreement calls for all these surcharges/parking etc to be passed back to the city to offset the additional 8.5 million that the city gives RSE in the form of "Arena Management Fees" was already coming to the team, with the exception of a nickel, that the team is now going to eat.......the math doesn't make sense. Other than the new parking lots that will be charging for parking (one already did charge). RSE gives all the revenue they would have got, + a nickel and then 20% of the naming rights and then rent, which they never paid basically under the old AMF......how does this math work? The revenue was already part of the business model, now its not...it goes to the city.

Can someone explain to me how this isn't just a shell game. The player in a shell game (COG) always walks away empty-handed, somehow.

The statement in the Republic is either way out of context, I am totally misunderstanding or this is some kind of scam where I say I'll pay a nickel out of my money for 8.5 million from you....

Can one of the math guys explain this to me?

Yes. It's simple Dave: Without the Coyotes at Jobbing.Com arena Glendale is screwed. Everyone except those that don't want the team in Glendale [mod] seems to understand this.

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

davemac1313 said:
If the agreement calls for all these surcharges/parking etc to be passed back to the city to offset the additional 8.5 million that the city gives RSE in the form of "Arena Management Fees" was already coming to the team, with the exception of a nickel, that the team is now going to eat.......the math doesn't make sense. Other than the new parking lots that will be charging for parking (one already did charge). RSE gives all the revenue they would have got, + a nickel and then 20% of the naming rights and then rent, which they never paid basically under the old AMF......how does this math work? The revenue was already part of the business model, now its not...it goes to the city.

Can someone explain to me how this isn't just a shell game. The player in a shell game (COG) always walks away empty-handed, somehow.

The statement in the Republic is either way out of context, I am totally misunderstanding or this is some kind of scam where I say I'll pay a nickel out of my money for 8.5 million from you....

Can one of the math guys explain this to me?

Well, DaveMac,
In the first place, we should use 9M, not 8.5M, because the other 500,000 is for maintenance of the facility, and is included outside the 15M. So, really, it's 9M that the city is short.

Then, we have the following:
Sherwood and co identified these revenues that could be used to make up the difference. But, he didn't say that some already existed in the budget. No, keep that quiet.
We heard from Birnbaum (city attorney) and Bowers (manager) that this was the case, but no one ever addressed it afterwards.

Now, we hear the following:
1 - Yes there will be ticket surcharges. However, the fans won't notice. (I am gong to ignore the 5 cents here). This means that:
a) Since the fans won't notice in the prices, it means that Glendale won't be getting anything more than was already budgeted for when they did the city budget at 6M., and
b) There will be no more revenues to the team either.

Now, what is not clear is:
How much surcharge was slated to go to the team before? In other words, is the CoG/RSE breakdown the same or different.

And, along with that, we are hearing projections of a large bump in salary cap for 2014-2015. That means that RSE will have to raise ticket prices to keep up with salary floor, never mind to try to make money.

Conclusion:
This deal is going to be a hard pull for both the City and the Team.

davemac1313 · Jul 6, 2013

kihekah19 said:
Yes. It's simple Dave: Without the Coyotes at Jobbing.Com arena Glendale is screwed. Everyone except those that don't want the team in Glendale [mod] seems to understand this..

Well if thats the case and the understanding in Glendale.....I now understand the vote...... :shakehead

wunderpanda · Jul 6, 2013

kihekah19 said:
Yes. It's simple Dave: Without the Coyotes at Jobbing.Com arena Glendale is screwed. Everyone except those that don't want the team in Glendale [mod] seems to understand this.

I think the issue is more cost vs return. The city will spend $15 million, which is already a loss of $9 million over budget. The city gave away rights of certain revenue streams to RSE with an expectation of getting a percentage in return. So the actual city budget is broken now because those streams were given away.

So the arena must be successful enough (with non hockey events, parking and sales taxes to the city) to generate more than the $15 million the city invested. I have no doubt the team and fans will make the Coyotes business profitable, but the math doesn't add up for the other 320 non-hockey days.

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

davemac1313 said:
Well if thats the case and the understanding in Glendale.....I now understand the vote......

I believe that the understanding for the City Council goes:

Weiers, Hugh, Alvarez :: This is a matter of giving money that we don't have to the hockey team. Weiers and Hugh likely understand a little more that Westgate did fine through the lockout without the Coyotes on balance according to their sales tax numbers (which is not what Kihekah would say and is different from a few anecdotal accounts of bars closing). Alvarez simply can't see giving money to team when police/fire don't have enough money, and parks and libraries are closing.

Sherwood: Big hockey fan, doesn't care about anything except keeping the team there. Uses fear of Westgate collapse to convince Knaack, Martinez and Chavira of the same.

Knaack: Convinced that the city depends on the hockey team being there.

Martinez and Chavira :: Less convinced, but lean toward saving the team, and toward not being able to tell any owner 'no' to his face.

And, it could be noted that, if Kihekah is right, and "Glendale is screwed if Coyotes leave", it is also correc to say that under this lease Glendale is also in big trouble....

davemac1313 · Jul 6, 2013

MNNumbers said:
Well, DaveMac,
In the first place, we should use 9M, not 8.5M, because the other 500,000 is for maintenance of the facility, and is included outside the 15M. So, really, it's 9M that the city is short.

Then, we have the following:
Sherwood and co identified these revenues that could be used to make up the difference. But, he didn't say that some already existed in the budget. No, keep that quiet.
We heard from Birnbaum (city attorney) and Bowers (manager) that this was the case, but no one ever addressed it afterwards.

Now, we hear the following:
1 - Yes there will be ticket surcharges. However, the fans won't notice. (I am gong to ignore the 5 cents here). This means that:
a) Since the fans won't notice in the prices, it means that Glendale won't be getting anything more than was already budgeted for when they did the city budget at 6M., and
b) There will be no more revenues to the team either.

Now, what is not clear is:
How much surcharge was slated to go to the team before? In other words, is the CoG/RSE breakdown the same or different.

And, along with that, we are hearing projections of a large bump in salary cap for 2014-2015. That means that RSE will have to raise ticket prices to keep up with salary floor, never mind to try to make money.

Conclusion:
This deal is going to be a hard pull for both the City and the Team.

Thanks, I appreciate a well thought out and explained, Intelligent answer.

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

davemac1313 said:
Thanks, I appreciate a well thought out and explained, Intelligent answer.

There is one more piece as well, Dave.

As you may know, the team has opt out rights after 5 years (and only after 5 years). If they opt out, they have apparently promised that they will pay Glendale the difference between these ancilllary revenues and 45M. In that way, CoG gets 'made whole' to the 6M in their budget.

However, having recognized that some of these revenues existed in the city budget before, we now know that this "make whole" guarantee will really be a "make whole except for the pieces that we tricked you into double counting" guarantee.

So, the City is going to lose money on this, no matter what happens. Unless, by some miracle, the Arena goes crazy with revenue and both the team and the city end up in the Black. This would take something close to the Red Sea opening again....

No Fun Shogun · Jul 6, 2013

Reading over the OP, I'm reminded how crazy it was here way back on the second of this month....

Llama19 · Jul 6, 2013

MNNumbers said:
There is one more piece as well, Dave.

As you may know, the team has opt out rights after 5 years (and only after 5 years). If they opt out, they have apparently promised that they will pay Glendale the difference between these ancilllary revenues and 45M. In that way, CoG gets 'made whole' to the 6M in their budget.

However, having recognized that some of these revenues existed in the city budget before, we now know that this "make whole" guarantee will really be a "make whole except for the pieces that we tricked you into double counting" guarantee.

So, the City is going to lose money on this, no matter what happens. Unless, by some miracle, the Arena goes crazy with revenue and both the team and the city end up in the Black. This would take something close to the Red Sea opening again....

To quote:

"In the short term, Glendale would be better off rejecting a request by the Coyotesâ€™ proposed new owners to increase the cityâ€™s financial stake in hockey, according to an analysis presented Friday by Glendale Financial Services Department Executive Director Sherry Schurhammer.

City officials have projected that keeping the team, according to the current proposed agreement, would cost the city about $2 million a year more than letting the team go. [Emphasis mine]

However, Schurhammer noted that neither the cityâ€™s nor the proposed team ownersâ€™ projections are certain, and few can project what would happen to Westgate."

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20130701coyotes-deal-facing-vote.html

OttawaRoughRiderFan* · Jul 6, 2013

Now THAT thread title made me laugh. :laugh:

Well done. :handclap:

davemac1313 · Jul 6, 2013

MNNumbers said:
There is one more piece as well, Dave.

As you may know, the team has opt out rights after 5 years (and only after 5 years). If they opt out, they have apparently promised that they will pay Glendale the difference between these ancilllary revenues and 45M. In that way, CoG gets 'made whole' to the 6M in their budget.

However, having recognized that some of these revenues existed in the city budget before, we now know that this "make whole" guarantee will really be a "make whole except for the pieces that we tricked you into double counting" guarantee.

So, the City is going to lose money on this, no matter what happens. Unless, by some miracle, the Arena goes crazy with revenue and both the team and the city end up in the Black. This would take something close to the Red Sea opening again....

Thanks, I have been following this, but I must have pulled a Martinez, because I believed these surcharges to be new revenue. I have never seen the financial will of the community to support the team before, so I expected that with surcharges it would be incumbant on the Phoenix area to step up to pay. Apparently not though.......just pretend nothing is happening, the market gives no more than they did, RSE gets More than had and according to informed sources, this saves Westgate and Glendale....

Brain Dead Simple, why was there a delay on the vote anyway??? It seems like a masterful plan for all-round success and prosperity for all parties. When the COG goes BK, they get out of all those cumbersome debts and can truly support the team with 25 million a year. That old guy hasn't got a chance (prolly cause the library is closed due to staffing issues and has been leased out as a gambling hall)

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

Llama19 said:
To quote:

"In the short term, Glendale would be better off rejecting a request by the Coyotesâ€™ proposed new owners to increase the cityâ€™s financial stake in hockey, according to an analysis presented Friday by Glendale Financial Services Department Executive Director Sherry Schurhammer.

City officials have projected that keeping the team, according to the current proposed agreement, would cost the city about $2 million a year more than letting the team go. [Emphasis mine]

However, Schurhammer noted that neither the cityâ€™s nor the proposed team ownersâ€™ projections are certain, and few can project what would happen to Westgate."

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20130701coyotes-deal-facing-vote.html

Which is the reason the Bowers continued to point out to the Council the RISK involved in this lease. City barely on secure footing (and maybe not really, but with a plan to get there), Is it really worth the risk to keep the Coyotes, when the projections 'suggest' that it costs 2M/yr?

Of course, you MIGHT hit it big.

Seems the Council is hoping to hit it big.

Me? To me, this seems like playing POWERBALL. Like someone said, "Lottery. A tax on people who are bad at math."

And, I say that as someone far, far away from Glendale, Seattle, and Quebec. My hope is only that Glendale make good decisions, that NHL make good decisions, that Seattle make good decisions, and Quebec City, too for that matter.....

Killion · Jul 6, 2013

Ah, not so fast there MNN. manisback merely stated that theres enough on record to file a complaint & show cause in seeking injunctive relief in his opinion, which may vary from one Attorney to another; neither he nor I aware of anyone in Phoenix actually preparing to do so as of yet. Will a group of concerned citizens, the GWI do so? I believe they will.

wunderpanda · Jul 6, 2013

Wasn't Westgate already bankrupt and siezed by lenders in '11

http://www.grattorneys.com/glendales-westgate-city-center-facing-foreclosure/

I think the Coyotes are just a distraction to some other cover up

MNNumbers · Jul 6, 2013

Killion said:
Ah, not so fast there MNN. manisback merely stated that theres enough on record to file a complaint & show cause in seeking injunctive relief in his opinion, which may vary from one Attorney to another; neither he nor I aware of anyone in Phoenix actually preparing to do so as of yet. Will a group of concerned citizens, the GWI do so? I believe they will.

Thank you for the correction, Killion. I was unsure of his wording, and assumed the strongest possible meaning.

I appreciate having the record straight.

Phoenix XCVII: Forget it, Jake. It's Glendale.

Registered User

Registered User

HACK THE BONE! HACK THE BONE!

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

34-38-61-10-13-15

Registered User

OttawaRoughRiderFan*

Guest

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

Registered User

HFBoards Sponsor

Ad

Ad

Ad