Phoenix XLIII: How to Bake Cupcakes in Less Than Two Weeks

[CasualFan]

Im not sure what the COG can do legally either cbc but tell ya what, Id be checking it out thoroughly with some sharp practicing attorneys to find out if I were in their shoes. Could be theyve signed away all rights to redress matters through the courts when they signed the AMUL last year but even still. I wouldnt just turtle & blithely accept such a fate as the one being orchestrated & perpetrated by the likes of the National Hockey League. Not a chance.

Glendale has no grounds to sue. They waived all of that in the Partial Assignment Agreement and AMUL. The NHL has been free and clear to relocate the team since December 31, 2010. Here's the AMUL

It was actually misreported that the NHL could not seek relocation until after December 31, 2011. You'll note that in the AMUL extension for this season, the league did not amend the language in Recital K or in Section 1.3.

Glendale signed the AMUL so they are SOL.

 

[Scottrocks58*]

There may be an entirely different sleight of hand going on.

To date, Glendale has refused to allow a study that would determine the cost of operating the arena. At this time, the arena manager is Arena Newco LLC, an entity owned by the NHL.

What would prevent Glendale from asking the NHL (via Arena Newco, LLC) to provide the cost of operating the arena for the last two years? In that scenario, the NHL would be free to make up any number they wanted since Glendale refused to allow an independent source to estimate the cost. If would be cumbersome to disprove whatever amount the NHL floated out there, no matter how absurd it sounded.

The City Council could then say "well, it costs $x to operate the arena whether the team is here or not. We might as well pay that amount to the team and have them stay!" Then just write the NHL's preferred amount into the budget book, bang the gavel, and call it official. The subsidy is nested into the arena management cost that the NHL themselves provided. Glendale conveniently looks the other way at the blatant conflict of interest in letting the league be the sole source of providing arena management costs.

Goldwater: "The arena management fee is grossly disproportionate!"
Glendale: "Your Honor, we obtained the arena management costs directly from the arena manager so we know the amount is legitimate."

This would speak to proportionality, but would it meet the direct benefits tine?

 

[Nordskull]

Really?

I recall reading post after post from "cultural colonists" of the United States who were just astounded by Judge Baum's ruling. Just watching US TV shows and reading about the occasional big court case does not make one familiar with US or Arizona corporate law.

Common law cannot be that different from our civil code.

On which basis Glendale would have a case?

Moving the team by itself is the sole right of the league.

What did the league do wrong?

To buy a pro sports team and build a arena is its owner risk. They are adults like you and I.

 

[Killion]

Goldwater: "The arena management fee is grossly disproportionate!"
Glendale: "Your Honor, we obtained the arena management costs directly from the arena manager so we know the amount is legitimate."

Glendale: "Your Honor, we obtained the arena management costs directly from the arena manager and were unaware of the fact that they were grossly disproportionate to market value & costs elsewhere. As such, we have decided to launch suit against Arena Newco LLC & the NHL & request that the moneys being held in escrow at this time pursuant to the 2011-12 season be frozen until a judgment is rendered on the matter".

 

[Scottrocks58*]

Glendale has no grounds to sue. They waived all of that in the Partial Assignment Agreement and AMUL. The NHL has been free and clear to relocate the team since December 31, 2010. Here's the AMUL

It was actually misreported that the NHL could not seek relocation until after December 31, 2011. You'll note that in the AMUL extension for this season, the league did not amend the language in Recital K or in Section 1.3.

Glendale signed the AMUL so they are SOL.

Does Glendale have a "Good Faith" argument to make? The NHL does look like it is pricing the team well above market value in order to avoid a local sale. I recall Judge Baum questioning the City attorney if they are sure that they want to sign on to the agreement. The only possible way to go up against the NHL that I see would be to claim that the NHL had all intents to relocate the team and so priced the team so high and so negotiated the agreement in bad faith.

 

[CasualFan]

This would speak to proportionality, but would it meet the direct benefits tine?

It would be a very challenging case. Much more difficult that stopping a bond offering (*assuming that Glendale could actually offer a bond that the market was interested in purchasing)

Does Glendale have a "Good Faith" argument to make? The NHL does look like it is pricing the team well about market value in order to avoid a local sale.

Glendale has no good faith claim regardless of the price set by the NHL. (terms of "Glendale Sale" from PAA.)

Glendale: "Your Honor, we obtained the arena management costs directly from the arena manager and were unaware of the fact that they were grossly disproportionate to market value & costs elsewhere. As such, we have decided to launch suit against Arena Newco LLC & the NHL & request that the moneys being held in escrow at this time pursuant to the 2011-12 season be frozen until a judgment is rendered on the matter".

You don't think the NHL will have a liability waiver in the agreement?

 

[Nordskull]

Let's say Balsillie was the owner, he could not move the team elsewhere if he wanted to?

 

[Killion]

Glendale signed the AMUL so they are SOL.

Like, well & truly CF?. Is there no angle to come at them from whatsoever?.

Edit note; oh you betcha they'll have a liability waiver included, but still... nada, no recourse?.

 

[CasualFan]

Like, well & truly CF?. Is there no angle to come at them from whatsoever?.

I do not see a clear path from my pro bono review. At standard retention rates, I would be happy to look at the agreements more critically.

 

[Gotaf7]

100 million 200 million 300 million........ How much in losses is it going to take till people realize NHL hockey is not sustainable in Arizona? I don't doubt Phoenix has some devoted fans I have been to the arena several times I get it, but look at the losses this team logs year in and year out a new owner will not make a go of it even if he got the team for 100 million. What would happen if the new owner came out with a season ticket drive like winnipeg, sell 15000 season tickets at $80 a seat average, he explains that this is what it will take to keep the team in Glendale,do the fans step up?

 

[Killion]

I do not see a clear path from my pro bono review. At standard retention rates, I would be happy to look at the agreements more critically.

vBucks?....

...and no offence on the vBucks, but unless your willing to relo yourself & join the firm('s) I pay retainers to Im pretty much maxed out. All manner of fronts being fought, so I can certainly assure you of some rather interesting work.

 

[kdb209]

Let's say Balsillie was the owner, he could not move the team elsewhere if he wanted to?

That was why the League would never have approved JB as an owner - and was why JB's bid in Pittsburgh was shackled with a 7-yr No Move agreement as a condition of sale.

Theoretically the League could block an incumbent owner from moving - forcing him to challenge the league's relocation restrictions under anti-trust law - but the result would be far from certain.

However, there is much stronger legal precedent upholding a leagues right to approve/disapprove an owner than there is to block a move by an existing owner.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

I do not see a clear path from my pro bono review. At standard retention rates, I would be happy to look at the agreements more critically.

Tortuous interference per chance?

 

[CasualFan]

Tortuous interference per chance?

Still my favorite. I was prepared to shred my degree and open a bead kiosk at SFO if that claim actually came forward.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

I do not see a clear path from my pro bono review. At standard retention rates, I would be happy to look at the agreements more critically.

Should you need a paralegal I'm cheap at 10 vBucks an hour. And I'm a notary to boot!

 

[CasualFan]

Should you need a paralegal I'm cheap at 10 vBucks an hour. And I'm a notary to boot!

Don't undersell yourself. Let the Partners set a more robust hourly consdieration for your services as part of Associates & Support fees in the retention.

 

[cbcwpg]

I do not see a clear path from my pro bono review. At standard retention rates, I would be happy to look at the agreements more critically.

Based on your pro bono opinion ( mostly because I don't have many vbucks ) could the CoG not have some claim based on the following....

I don't have the exact quote or link, but IIRC didn't Daly ( on behalf of the NHL ) say to either the public or the CoG that the first $25M was just an insurance policy and was never going to be spent. And based on that statement wouldn't the CoG been more likely to have spent the $25M than not.

Or would this just be concidered his opinion and not a statement made on behalf of the NHL.

 

[Nordskull]

That was why the League would never have approved JB as an owner - and was why JB's bid in Pittsburgh was shackled with a 7-yr No Move agreement as a condition of sale.

Theoretically the League could block an incumbent owner from moving - forcing him to challenge the league's relocation restrictions under anti-trust law - but the result would be far from certain.

However, there is much stronger legal precedent upholding a leagues right to approve/disapprove an owner than there is to block a move by an existing owner.

OK but it was not what I meant.

Let's say John Doe is the onwer. The city could sue him because he is moving his team or selling his team?

Is it John Doe or the NHL, it has no importance, the owner can do whatever he wants with his marbles, as long as he got the authorisation he needs.

John Doe here have nothing to ask to COG.

The NHL is the owner of the franchise period. Its double status as league at the same time have nothing to do with its responsability or lack of.

Unless someone have written documents stating the league have this or that obligation, I just don't see a case.

If the city would have a case, then, man, I don't want to live in AZ!

 

[Mungman]

Based on your pro bono opinion ( mostly because I don't have many vbucks ) could the CoG not have some claim based on the following....

I don't have the exact quote or link, but IIRC didn't Daly ( on behalf of the NHL ) say to either the public or the CoG that the first $25M was just an insurance policy and was never going to be spent. And based on that statement wouldn't the CoG been more likely to have spent the $25M than not.

Or would this just be concidered his opinion and not a statement made on behalf of the NHL.

No verbal modifications to a written agreement. (insert standard not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV either disclaimer)

 

[Killion]

Let the Partners set a more robust hourly consdideration for your services as part of Associates & Support fees in the retention.

Counselor....
you are the engine....
that drives this thread...

 

[CasualFan]

Based on your pro bono opinion ( mostly because I don't have many vbucks ) could the CoG not have some claim based on the following....

I don't have the exact quote or link, but IIRC didn't Daly ( on behalf of the NHL ) say to either the public or the CoG that the first $25M was just an insurance policy and was never going to be spent. And based on that statement wouldn't the CoG been more likely to have spent the $25M than not.

Or would this just be concidered his opinion and not a statement made on behalf of the NHL.

I believe the statement you are referring to was made by Art Lynch, a consultant for the City of Glendale. Regardless of who made the statement, the AMUL and Escrow Agreement define exactly how the payment is to be made. There is no verbal representation that supersedes the contract language.

 

[Mungman]

No verbal modifications to a written agreement. (insert standard not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV either disclaimer)

I believe the statement you are referring to was made by Art Lynch, a consultant for the City of Glendale. Regardless of who made the statement, the AMUL and Escrow Agreement define exactly how the payment is to be made. There is no verbal representation that supersedes the contract language.

What!?!?!?!?! I got one right for once?

 

[Scottrocks58*]

Tortuous interference per chance?

I'm sorry but I've never been one to enjoy Bono's work. He's a bit of a flake. I'm getting accustomed to library work so if you need a researcher who isn't pro Bono, just call.

I'm surprised that you don't see a Good Faith claim. I would think that given the public statements about selling to a local owner was cause for the COG to throw its lot in with that of the NHL that an argument couldn't be made. Food for thought. I'm going to chase down the AMULA tonight and read it tomorrow. (Will be at the Canucks game tonight.)

Wrong quote attached. This was meant for CF. Sorry.

 

[CasualFan]

OK but it was not what I meant.

Let's say John Doe is the onwer. The city could sue him because he is moving his team or selling his team?

Is it John Doe or the NHL, it has no importance, the owner can do whatever he wants with his marbles, as long as he got the authorisation he needs.

John Doe here have nothing to ask to COG.

The NHL is the owner of the franchise period. Its double status as league at the same time have nothing to do with its responsability or lack of.

Unless someone have written documents stating the league have this or that obligation, I just don't see a case.

If the city would have a case, then, man, I don't want to live in AZ!

I believe you are referring to Specific Performance. The original Moyes AMULA contained that language. (ie- the Coyotes must play all home games in Jobing.com Arena for the period of 2004 to 2034). That contract was rejected during the bankruptcy case.

Subsequently, the NHL signed an AMUL. The NHL ensured that there was no specific performance language in the new agreement. Further, they wrote language that outlined their right to relocate the team.

Contractually, the owner (whoever it is) has the right to move the Coyotes anytime after the conclusion of this season (technically, it's either 5 or 10 days after the end of the season, I forget which). From here, I defer to KDB regarding the NHL constitution and bylaws for moving franchises.

 

[CasualFan]

I'm sorry but I've never been one to enjoy Bono's work. He's a bit of a flake. I'm getting accustomed to library work so if you need a researcher who isn't pro Bono, just call.

I'm surprised that you don't see a Good Faith claim. I would think that given the public statements about selling to a local owner was cause for the COG to throw its lot in with that of the NHL that an argument couldn't be made. Food for thought. I'm going to chase down the AMULA tonight and read it tomorrow. (Will be at the Canucks game tonight.)

Wrong quote attached. This was meant for CF. Sorry.

Enjoy the game. It will be much more entertaining than the AMULA:

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_1.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_2.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_3.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_4.pdf