Phoenix XXII: It's Now or Never

Status
Not open for further replies.

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Thank you for digging that up! I made reference to it yesterday, not recalling if the surcharge was on tickets or parking, but I thought the latter.....So not only was Moyes negligent in actually charging $10-20 per car for parking, it was doubly worse since he had to pay money to Glendale each time someone parked. Furthermore, to change that part of the lease required Glendale's approval, yet now they are willing to PAY the Arena Manager up front for those rights and collect this money directly

Edit: No bites on proportionality or proper valuation? Hmmm.....Anyone know the rights wrt to the parking garage as originally written up?

Well, no Fugu, Moyes paid $2.70 on every ticket sold to games & events at the arena to Glendale, and as we know neither he nor Ellman charged for parking directly which of course was their perogative. The parking surcharge remains in Hulsizers' deal, so the COG is looking at getting their bread buttered on both sides in continuing to receive the nearly 3 bucks per tkt plus the new direct fee's @per car per spot; along with the naming & advertising rights for the lots of course.

I believe a link was provided with a pdf pursuant to the original garage agreement with Ellman, however, my clerical skills in locating it are wonting. Proper Valuations' & Proportionality?. There-in lies the problem, and though it should be an easy question to answer, the lines are blurred, all site of land lost. Compass spinning. Caught in a vortex somewhere off the coast of South Florida. Good luck finding your way back to port & the original point of embarkation. :naughty:
 
Last edited:

CitizenCoyote

Registered User
Mar 4, 2007
1,610
0
What's all this obsession with whether the bonds are "on sale."

They are. The preliminary bond statement that everyone is linking is something that was obtained by the Arizona newspaper from an investor. JP Morgan provided a preliminary prospectus to qualified investors on February 10. They have probably issued a number of supplements none of us has seen. Investors are doing their due diligence and making their decisions. That's the "sale". We don't know if the bonds have been sold yet. Or whether there's an agreement from JP Morgan to take some portion into its own account and sell on the secondary market to keep the spread. Or if there's some other financing going on. Or even whether there's an auction going on among investors. Or whether the issuer is considering multiple offers.

The offering memorandum clearly envisions a private placement only to qualified institutional investors, with a limited distribution.

While the sale ultimately will have to be reported publicly, nobody has any idea what's going on right now. If an investor hadn't given his copy of the report to the Arizona paper, you wouldn't even know the preliminary offering memorandum had been distributed.
 

Fugu

Guest
Well, no Fugu, Moyes paid $2.70 on every ticket sold to games & events at the arena to Glendale, and as we know neither he nor Ellman charged for parking directly which of course was their perogative. The parking surcharge remains in Hulsizers' deal, so the COG is looking at getting their bread buttered on both sides in continuing to receive the nearly 3 bucks per tkt plus the new direct fee's @per car per spot; along with the naming & advertising rights for the lots of course.

I believe a link was provided with a pdf pursuant to the original garage agreement with Ellman, however, my clerical skills in locating it are wonting.
Proper Valuations' & Proportionality?. There-in lies the problem, and though it should be an easy question to answer, the lines are blurred, all site of land lost. Compass spinning. Caught in a vortex somewhere off the coast of South Florida. Good luck finding your way back to port & the original point of embarkation. :naughty:

Just as planned, I'm sure, as far as finding port. I have no idea how anyone who follows these things as a "hobby" could possible sort all the red herrings away from the real treasure trail. :laugh:
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
The offering memorandum clearly envisions a private placement only to qualified institutional investors, with a limited distribution. ....While the sale ultimately will have to be reported publicly, nobody has any idea what's going on right now. If an investor hadn't given his copy of the report to the Arizona paper, you wouldn't even know the preliminary offering memorandum had been distributed.

I think its reasonable to suggest they could all be looking at this under non-disclosures, because even the little birdies who usually whisper in my ears are refusing comment. :naughty:

Just as planned, I'm sure, as far as finding port. I have no idea how anyone who follows these things as a "hobby" could possibly sort all the red herrings away from the real treasure trail. :laugh:

Exactly. This has the Guardian Projects legal minds of the NHL written all over it. Not even Arthur C. Clarke could mark Squared to this Triangle of intrigue so how can we hobbyists possibly expect to uncover the truth?. The answer lies somewhere in the depths off the end of the Bimini Road....

"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming".

Warner Von Braun

"And sometimes when Im' done reading?. I'll lick the last page, because it tastes like Kool-Aide".
Jack Handey :)
 
Last edited:

Ciao

Registered User
Jul 15, 2010
9,918
5,735
Toronto
Totally objective post, equating this deal to a bank robbery. Just love it.:shakehead

You're right. It is patently unfair.

Bank robbers would have to carry their loot in cash or personal property like diamonds or gold bars. Much too heavy. They'd never be able to get away with as much as $100-million because they couldn't carry it all at once.

This is much more white-collar: like insider trading, or that sort of thing.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto
So back in the time of Moyes ownership the cry was the team can't make any money because they had a bad deal with the arena, or was it city? An example given at the time was the team can't make any money from parking, infact the team has to pay the city for each car parked. The amount was 2.70 per car IIRC. My question is how does the team make money from parking now? Seems impossible. Seems like the team still has that bad arena deal.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
You're right. It is patently unfair.

Bank robbers would have to carry their loot in cash or personal property like diamonds or gold bars. Much too heavy. They'd never be able to get away with as much as $100-million because they couldn't carry it all at once.

This is much more white-collar: like insider trading, or that sort of thing.

Agree to disagree then my friend.;)
 

cheswick

Non-registered User
Mar 17, 2010
6,764
1,094
South Kildonan
So back in the time of Moyes ownership the cry was the team can't make any money because they had a bad deal with the arena, or was it city? An example given at the time was the team can't make any money from parking, infact the team has to pay the city for each car parked. The amount was 2.70 per car IIRC. My question is how does the team make money from parking now? Seems impossible. Seems like the team still has that bad arena deal.

They make 100 million from parking up front
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
So back in the time of Moyes ownership the cry was the team can't make any money because they had a bad deal with the arena, or was it city? An example given at the time was the team can't make any money from parking, in fact the team has to pay the city for each car parked. The amount was 2.70 per car IIRC. My question is how does the team make money from parking now? Seems impossible. Seems like the team still has that bad arena deal.

$2.70 per ticket sold
, not car parked. No one was counting cars here HH. Trainspotting. Its all based on projections. They (Ellman & then Moyes) had the "right" to charge, didnt, as they felt it would affect attendance (though there was a limited Valet Service running for awhile). The "team" is being paid up-front ($100M) to fore-go its rights to charge for parking, advertising & naming rights for the lots as you know. Is getting $100M up-front for parking rights is a bad deal?. :shakehead
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto

$2.70 per ticket sold
, not car parked. No one was counting cars here HH. Trainspotting. Its all based on projections. They (Ellman & then Moyes) had the "right" to charge, didnt, as they felt it would affect attendance (though there was a limited Valet Service running for awhile). The "team" is being paid up-front ($100M) to fore-go its rights to charge for parking, advertising & naming rights for the lots as you know. Is getting $100M up-front for parking rights is a bad deal?. :shakehead

Alright, so I guess MH can't complain he can't make money, since he got it all upfront.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Alright, so I guess MH can't complain he can't make money, since he got it all upfront.

The optimist in me says no, the cynic says' yes he can & likely will unless there's a dramatic turnaround in the economy & at the gate with both the franchise & non-hockey related bookings at the job. Really, he's just a conduit through which that $100M flows directly into the NHL's coffers. He wont even realize a minutes worth of interest on it, and then has to top up the tank with another $70M+ down, up-front. He does have the Arena Management Contract in-hand moving forward, however, that particular stop-loss portion of the dealeo' is problematical in terms of getting done without alteration, & though overly generous, wont negate the requirement for cash calls through 2011-12 & beyond.... And what of Glendale?. Real hire-wire act with its revenue projections pursuant to the parking & naming/advertising rights to the lots. If they fall short, and there bound to do so, the taxpayers will in fact wind up funding the debt servicing on the bonds with either cutbacks or losses in services & or the COG taking vacations from paying into municipal employee's pension funds. Could go Kaboom.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,099
20,372
Between the Pipes
http://www.superfans.ca/content/view/378/

From CJOB's Greg Mackling

It is my understanding (from sources close to the NHL BoG), that the group led by Chicago businessman, Matthew Hulsizer, and the afore mentioned City of Glendale, AZ, have until March 1st, 2011 to finalize the purchase agreement which has been an agreement in principle since December 14th, 2010.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto
The optimist in me says no, the cynic says' yes he can & likely will unless there's a dramatic turnaround in the economy & at the gate with both the franchise & non-hockey related bookings at the job. Really, he's just a conduit through which that $100M flows directly into the NHL's coffers. He wont even realize a minutes worth of interest on it, and then has to top up the tank with another $70M+ down, up-front. He does have the Arena Management Contract in-hand moving forward, however, that particular stop-loss portion of the dealeo' is problematical in terms of getting done without alteration, & though overly generous, wont negate the requirement for cash calls through 2011-12 & beyond.... And what of Glendale?. Real hire-wire act with its revenue projections pursuant to the parking & naming/advertising rights to the lots. If they fall short, and there bound to do so, the taxpayers will in fact wind up funding the debt servicing on the bonds with either cutbacks or losses in services & or the COG taking vacations from paying into municipal employee's pension funds. Could go Kaboom.

I agree with all you said except the taxpayer part. Didn't the city claim the bond holders will be paid from the parking rev. If parking isn't enough are the bond holders not left holding the bag of pucks. The city did forewarn that purchasers should be prepared to lose part or all their investment, didn't they? Or did I misunderstand that as well? I think the bond holders would have little to worry about, other than the city declaring bankruptcy, if the city would make up the shortfalls through other sources.
 

OthmarAmmann

Omnishambles
Jul 7, 2010
2,761
0
NYC
I agree with all you said except the taxpayer part. Didn't the city claim the bond holders will be paid from the parking rev. If parking isn't enough are the bond holders not left holding the bag of pucks. The city did forewarn that purchasers should be prepared to lose part or all their investment, didn't they? Or did I misunderstand that as well? I think the bond holders would have little to worry about, other than the city declaring bankruptcy, if the city would make up the shortfalls through other sources.

No, the bonds are secured by the city's excise tax revenue. The statement regarding losing your investment is boilerplate.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Or did I misunderstand that as well?.

Im afraid you mustve' HH. If the parking, advertising & naming rights revenues for the lots fall short of the projections, the COG will have to dip into its' general tax revenues in order to service the debt on the bonds.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto
Im afraid you mustve' HH. If the parking, advertising & naming rights revenues for the lots fall short of the projections, the COG will have to dip into its' general tax revenues in order to service the debt on the bonds.

Thanks, so the bonds are as risky as I thought.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043

RAgIn

Registered User
Oct 21, 2010
900
0
Sudbury, Ont
Still no bonds?

I've lost track of this thread, but the outcome will be easy to understand: Hulsizer gets a cheque sometime soon, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, the first we'll likely know about it is after the league has already pulled the plug.

If Goldwater intends to litigate, it will have to file documents very soon. I think the time-line for Goldwater bringing legal action is at least as tight as it is for Glendale in issuing the bonds.

If everything comes together, the first we might know about that could also be after the cheque has been safely delivered. I doubt that Glendale, Hulsizer and the NHL will want to notify Goldwater that everything is completed until after the Brinks truck has been unloaded and the money put in the vault. That would be like calling the police while you're still in the middle of a bank robbery.

Perhaps GWI is working behind the scenes with the COG. That might be a reason for the delay.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
GWI laying the foundation for a lawsuit? All it would take is one citizen to file correct?

http://www.glendalestar.com/news/ar...Z&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=SNS.analytics

Any chance that a Glendale local here is planning to infiltrate, uhm attend, and report back.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Gro...c6cbbbf1ba/Tea_Party_Patriots_of_Glendale__AZ

About Us
Tea Party Patriots of Glendale, AZ meets weekly on Wednesdays, 6 pm, Marie Callendar's restaurant, 4930 W. Bell Rd. (51st Ave. & Bell Rd.) in Glendale, AZ. (See also: Arizona- Glendale Tea Party Patriots)

There are no details on their local website - just the usual meeting info.

http://glendaleteaparty.com/joomla/

Tea Party Patriots of Glendale meets every Wednesday, 6 pm,
Marie Callendar's Restaurant, 4930 W. Bell Rd., in Glendale.
Contact: [email protected]
Phone: 602-670-7124
 

Tinalera

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,522
50
The Known Universe
http://www.superfans.ca/content/view/378/

From CJOB's Greg Mackling

It is my understanding (from sources close to the NHL BoG), that the group led by Chicago businessman, Matthew Hulsizer, and the afore mentioned City of Glendale, AZ, have until March 1st, 2011 to finalize the purchase agreement which has been an agreement in principle since December 14th, 2010.

:whatever: (they really that "yawning" simile on these boards)

This is how many "deadlines" now? Yea, whatever, just throw this one on the pile...:naughty:


BTW, cbcwpg, this wasn't directed at you but just "another" deadline....:)


EDIT: What I note a lack of is the "or else" part of it...if not by March 1...then, another two weeks? Just would have had more punch if they had the atlernative to not haveing the deal done by March 1
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->