Phoenix XXIX: What's the next act? I'm tired of the dog & pony show

[Confucius]

Of course they're putting money at risk -- almost every decision ever made puts money at risk in one way or another, if it was a no-brainer then you wouldn't have people arguing over it.

As for your suggestion that they are breaking the law, that's highly debatable considering all of the subsidies that have been provided to private business in the history of the United States.



That's for the NHL to decide. Much like the CoG, hfboards posters are really in no position to suggest that the aren't acting in their own best interest.

The fact that he's putting up $70m to buy the team and invest his time into it is indicative of the fact that he thinks he can make it successful. We're really in no position to question how he spends his money either. Like I said, you've got an owner, government and league on board, there really shouldnt' be problems here -- especially those caused by a rogue 3rd party committing tortous interference.

Well we really don't know that do we? There was rumour that the 25 million he put up was from an investment bank and not actually his own. We posters have noway of really knowing but it is possible.

If the city buys the parking rights and pays MH 100 million. He now would have 125 million to give the NHL and maybe not a penny is actually his. Since he would have 125 million of which a 100 million is now technically his, it would be possible to borrow 50 million and then pay the NHL their 175 million for the team. Still not a penny was brought to the table from MH.

The city would then pay him about 17 million per year to run the arena. If he finds he is losing money, I imagine he can BK the hockey team and walk away. I'd guess the banks would have first dibbs on the team. Similar to what Moyes investors had. What does the city have at the end of 2 or 3 years? Besides the debt of another 100 million dollar bond.

 

[CoyotesinAZ]

If the parking rights are so much, then why wouldn't the Phoenix Coyotes organization keep the parking rights, charge for parking, and take advantage of that massive revenue stream?

To stay on topic, I wasn't saying parking rights were so much, I was answering your question about new ownership being better by saying that by actually charging for parking, new ownership is looking better than the old.

 

[Killion]

Just a hunch but to throw out a few ideas just for giggles to back up my hunch. I could go on, but these are the most blatantly obvious ones that even you or I could muster improvement upon.

Giggles huh?. I'll give you giggles. Had I or any other "olde time hockey guy" or even just a fan been able to decide, Bang!, I wouldve' dropped them right into the Az Vets Memorial. Retro-fitted & upgraded the place, consolidated, built up the fan base & worked with the State Fair Authorities to either build a new facility on those grounds or somewhere else in Phoenix/Scottsdale that made sense.

 

[CoyotesinAZ]

Giggles huh?. I'll give you giggles. Had I or any other "olde time hockey guy" or even just a fan been able to decide, Bang!, I wouldve' dropped them right into the Az Vets Memorial. Retro-fitted & upgraded the place, consolidated, built up the fan base & worked with the State Fair Authorities to either build a new facility on those grounds or somewhere else in Phoenix/Scottsdale that made sense.

I agree 1000 percent!!

 

[TrentSteele]

Half empty, or half full? What makes you think that Hulsizer is less qualified at selecting these people than any of the previous owners were?

Just a hunch but to throw out a few ideas just for giggles to back up my hunch.

a) Even I wouldn't pay Gretzky 8-9 mil. year to coach a losing team as an inexperienced coach (unless Gretzky was part owner, which he was, and I could show it as part of a loss) B) I would charge for parking like the rest of the world in every sport does. If I am the only team not doing it, I would question why not? C) Moyes did not know anything about hockey. Never played it, didn't care about it, probably didn't know the rules. He did allegedly know the rules of charging exhorbitant amounts to the Coyotes for transportation though through his main business (swift transportation). He never spoke out to the fans or showed any acknowledgement of them. D) Moyes obviously chose to put the rink in a perimeter of Phoenix metropolitan in Glendale, an hour and a half from the other side of Metro phoenix. This may work for Football when one attends once every other weekend on a sunday and make a day of it with tailgating, but with hockey on weekdays, I would have put it in the center of the circle of Phoenix where takes EVERYONE a maximum of 45 minutes to get there D) I would not put their hockey facility in a basketball arena where a large portion of seats coudn't view the game and expect people to watch the game on a large TV. I could go on, but these are the most blatantly obvious ones that even you or I could muster improvement upon.

Apologies if I'm am lumping you into the wrong catagory, but many Coyotes fans see Hulsizer as the Saviour and that he will take this franchise to the promised land. That he will be a stable owner willing to pay for big name free agents, etc.

Seems rather optimistic to me. Maybe all of the previous owners were terrible, but hindsight is 20/20. I bet most didn't think they were going to be terrible when they first started.

As for your ideas:

a) That's a good start
b) Nope, won't be able to do that, the COG will own parking rights, so those won'd help the Coyotes make money
c) Ok, but that's only one of the owners, why did the others all lose money?
d.1) Oops, well too late to fix this, shoulda, woulda, coulda
d.2) Same as d.1

 

[Killion]

For the record, I'm 'F'.

Lucky you. Casting Directors take one look at my head shots & reels, pass. Phrenologically Deviant Type. Devils Reject yes; Devils Advocate?.; err, love your work, but not so much. Thanks for coming in....

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

... but many Coyotes fans see Hulsizer as the Saviour and that he will take this franchise to the promised land. That he will be a stable owner willing to pay for big name free agents, etc.

I dunno about that, but right now he's the only option for the Phoenix Coyotes to play in the 2011 - 2012 season, whether he's a good owner or a bad one.

 

[Killion]

I agree 1000 percent!!

Well thankyou, thankyouverymuch. No one wouldve' ever wanted to have left that building after a few years, but needs must, a far more intelligent & sound decision coulda/shoulda/woulda been arrived at & we wouldnt be in this mess at all.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Maybe all of the previous owners were terrible, but hindsight is 20/20.

Would it be fair to say that it is an indictment on the NHL and their process for vetting their owners?

 

[TrentSteele]

Would it be fair to say that it is an indictment on the NHL and their process for vetting their owners?

Don't know about that, every business ends up hiring someone who doesn't work out. Since I don't really know what steps the NHL goes through, it's difficult to make that judgement.

 

[CasualFan]

In your hypothetical example all that would matter to the Arizona Gift Clause is the $50 million because that is the amount the city would be paying company X which could be tested as to whether it runs afoul of the Clause.

Paying $625m in the long run may or may not be a prudent decision, but it would not be an issue subject to the Gift Clause.

The argument that interest is not included in the consideration test cannot be made to a certainty. I find neither case law nor a precedent to support such a definitive statement. If you are aware of a supporting principle to the contrary, I would enjoy reading it.

Goldwater is already accentuating that the Gift Clause prohibits the use of public debt to finance a private entity. It is logical to assume they would argue the interest is included in the public debt and therefore should be included in the test for consideration. A judge could easily agree. Either way we are likely to go through the appellate process and receive another Supreme Court opinion on the Gift Clause.

If this were to actually go to trial.

 

[CoyotesinAZ]

Apologies if I'm am lumping you into the wrong catagory, but many Coyotes fans see Hulsizer as the Saviour and that he will take this franchise to the promised land. That he will be a stable owner willing to pay for big name free agents, etc.

Seems rather optimistic to me. Maybe all of the previous owners were terrible, but hindsight is 20/20. I bet most didn't think they were going to be terrible when they first started.

As for your ideas:

a) That's a good start
b) Nope, won't be able to do that, the COG will own parking rights, so those won'd help the Coyotes make money
c) Ok, but that's only one of the owners, why did the others all lose money?
d.1) Oops, well too late to fix this, shoulda, woulda, coulda
d.2) Same as d.1

I agree there are some shoulda, woulda, coulda's. I think we may be able to agree that new ownership would have to try hard to be WORSE than previous, and that along with the refreshing thought of having someone who actually cares about the sport and seems to reach out to fans may be where the savior mentality comes in for many. Unfortunately, Ellman gained by getting the Cards/Coyotes on his Westgate property. (which could backfire) Moyes got his tax writeoffs and did his damage to the fanbase (and the Coyotes and lawsuits have backfired on him), and we, the fans, are just trying our best to make due to try to clean up their mess.

 

[fokkerfan]

I can't believe MH wants this team that badly. Who's really pulling the strings on this puppet? As much as I care, let Glendale keep the team, in a couple of years they will be begging someone to take them out of there just to recoup a small portion of a massive debt that will have expanded to gross proportions!

 

[TrentSteele]

I agree there are some shoulda, woulda, coulda's. I think we may be able to agree that new ownership would have to try hard to be WORSE than previous, and that along with the refreshing thought of having someone who actually cares about the sport and seems to reach out to fans may be where the savior mentality comes in for many. Unfortunately, Ellman gained by getting the Cards/Coyotes on his Westgate property. (which could backfire) Moyes got his tax writeoffs and did his damage to the fanbase (and the Coyotes and lawsuits have backfired on him), and we, the fans, are just trying our best to make due to try to clean up their mess.

I'll agree that it would be an effort to be worse, but any new owner has a long way to go to make it a successful endevour. I've yet to see Hulsizer's plan.

I have respect for the fans who are at every game (or as many as they can afford in these uncertain times), doing what they need to do, a hoping above all else that someone saves their team. I've been through that.

I'm seeing a lot of solutions (legal or not) to making this ok for the City of Glendale and very few on how to make the team profitable.

 

[macavoy]

What does the City of Glendale stand to lose if the team is picked up and moved at the end of the season?

Who owns the arena? What revenue will the city lose out on?

 

[seanlinden]

I don't think GWI should be promoting a business case for an AHL team if CoG isn't interested in it. To me, GWI should be and is concerned with taxpayers best interest and this deal only. I concede that the Coyotes are probably the best use of the arena but ONLY if it is economically viable to all parties.

They should be concerned with the taxpayers best interest, and if they were, they wouldn't be committing tortous interference making the best deal for the taxpayers worse. If they think there is a better option than the one offered by Hulsizer, they are more than free to promote it.

wow. he's putting up $70M for a franchise with a price tag of $170M with the difference coming from a bond sale by the city. Plus he needs additional revenue of an $100M from the city to complete the deal. Yeah, he must think there's tons of money in owning a hockey team in the desert.

He basically exchanging $70M for $100M and hoping the team can stop losing as much money.

$70m is not money that guys throw away into ventures that they don't think they can make a profit on. What he's doing is taking a $100m payment to sign a 30 year lease with the Glendale that isn't ideal, making the franchise worth only $70m with the new lease in place.

They're putting money at risk by investing in a failing business and putting the city's credit/money on the line so a private business doesn't have to do that themselves. It is a needless gamble....this isn't an investment....it is a gift and a risky one.

The history of Arizona since the Constitution has not permitted it is the only thing that is important. I did notice that you totally ignored my question though. Maple Leaf revenues....tens of millions a year for Glendale....48 laws broken. Do it?

They're putting money at risk to ensure they have an NHL team in their 8 year old arena, and get the associated revenues, that's the motivation for the city, nothing more.

The Arizona constitution does not permit gifts, this isn't a gift, this is an investment. They expect to recieve real revenues from the team, arena, and parking to pay off the bonds that they will be issuing. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Personally, the thing I find funny is the fact that all of you arguing for GWI's position problably wouldn't be here doing that if the next option for the Coyotes would be to fold. It's truly amazing that people continue to fight it -- they have an owner, the NHL is happy, the citizens of Glendale are happy, the only people unhappy are that way because it's not winnipeg.

Well we really don't know that do we? There was rumour that the 25 million he put up was from an investment bank and not actually his own. We posters have noway of really knowing but it is possible.

If the city buys the parking rights and pays MH 100 million. He now would have 125 million to give the NHL and maybe not a penny is actually his. Since he would have 125 million of which a 100 million is now technically his, it would be possible to borrow 50 million and then pay the NHL their 175 million for the team. Still not a penny was brought to the table from MH.

The city would then pay him about 17 million per year to run the arena. If he finds he is losing money, I imagine he can BK the hockey team and walk away. I'd guess the banks would have first dibbs on the team. Similar to what Moyes investors had. What does the city have at the end of 2 or 3 years? Besides the debt of another 100 million dollar bond.

Where the money came from is also irrelevant. That ibank does their own financial valuation to decide whether or not it's a good venture.

As for the rest of your post -- is it a risky venture? absolutely, but with risk comes potential payoff. Do I think they would be best served just giving him the ability to play for free and parking rights? absolutely, but for whatever reason the CoG wants to retain those rights.

 

[kdb209]

E) Have Law Degree but Dis-Barred.
F) Played Lawyer on Stage or Screen.
G) Once watched 5mins' of The Practice.

H) Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

edit: Damn, Evil Doctor beat me to it.

 

[Jeffrey93]

They're putting money at risk to ensure they have an NHL team in their 8 year old arena, and get the associated revenues, that's the motivation for the city, nothing more.

Yup...spend 2x dollars so you might not lose x dollars. Smart thinking.

The Arizona constitution does not permit gifts, this isn't a gift, this is an investment. They expect to recieve real revenues from the team, arena, and parking to pay off the bonds that they will be issuing. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Weird....Goldwater thinks that it does.

Personally, the thing I find funny is the fact that all of you arguing for GWI's position problably wouldn't be here doing that if the next option for the Coyotes would be to fold. It's truly amazing that people continue to fight it -- they have an owner, the NHL is happy, the citizens of Glendale are happy, the only people unhappy are that way because it's not winnipeg.

If this team bails....I hope it isn't to Winnipeg.

So...you might be describing a few people on these boards, but not me.

Again...it doesn't matter how many people are "happy"....is it legal? No.

Your refusal to answer my very simple hypothetical question is very telling. You realize that governments shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they please because it might pay off financially or at the least mitigate some of their idiotic decisions of the past. You just seem to have a hard time admitting this.

So...Leaf revenues....tens of millions a year to Glendale....48 laws broken. Sign the deal?

 

[BrianSTC]

Does anyone have a link to Doug MacEachern’s editorial in the Arizona Republic on the Coyote's situation? Apparantly it was pretty bad and I think it was pulled because I can't seem to find it anywhere. I am curious as to what he said.

 

[Koss]

$70m is not money that guys throw away into ventures that they don't think they can make a profit on. What he's doing is taking a $100m payment to sign a 30 year lease with the Glendale that isn't ideal, making the franchise worth only $70m with the new lease in place.

It doesn't matter what the amount is. If I give you $70 and in return I'm getting some worth $170 that's a good deal. Even if the $170 widget loses money for me at it's retail price, I'm pretty sure it's going to be profitable for me when discounted that much.

On top of that if I'm getting another $17/year from the seller the next 5 years, even if I have some expenses and have to pay you back some fees of $5 year. If I'm still profiting 7-9 a year, wow what an awesome deal for me. I just put another $35 dollars in my pocket and I have a widget worth $170 all for my initial investment of $70 which after 5 years cost me $35. Yeah, he's a hedge fund manager.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

What does the City of Glendale stand to lose if the team is picked up and moved at the end of the season?

Who owns the arena? What revenue will the city lose out on?

The CoG owns the arena, and they incurred a large debt to pay for it.

It's also part and parcel of the Westgate shopping and entertainment complex. The city gets tax revenue from Westgate, and the Westgate businesses are largely dependent on the arena visitors for their customers.

The CoG is depending on that tax revenue to pay for the arena debt.

Does that sound about right?

http://www.westgatecitycenter.com/

 

[seanlinden]

Yup...spend 2x dollars so you might not lose x dollars. Smart thinking.

Weird....Goldwater thinks that it does.

If this team bails....I hope it isn't to Winnipeg.

So...you might be describing a few people on these boards, but not me.

Again...it doesn't matter how many people are "happy"....is it legal? No.

Your refusal to answer my very simple hypothetical question is very telling. You realize that governments shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they please because it might pay off financially or at the least mitigate some of their idiotic decisions of the past. You just seem to have a hard time admitting this.

So...Leaf revenues....tens of millions a year to Glendale....48 laws broken. Sign the deal?

Well I'll try to reply maturely, something you've failed to do.

If the elected representatives felt that this was simply a way to spend 2x dollars to make X dollars, then they wouldn't do it. They are privy to much more information than you or I and feel that it's best to spend X dollars now to make Y dollars over time, where the present value of Y is greater than X.

Goldwater is also acting outside of the taxpayers best interest and in an illegal fashion. Their opinion on something is far from credible.

Then why are you posting here? Do you really want to see Phoenix lose it's team? Do you really want to see some rogue 3rd party get in the way of a good deal for all sides?

Governments should be allowed to do what is in the best interest of the citizens unless the law prevents them from doing so... but again, that's 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as whether or not they'd be breaking the law is highly debatable at best.

It doesn't matter what the amount is. If I give you $70 and in return I'm getting some worth $170 that's a good deal. Even if the $170 widget loses money for me at it's retail price, I'm pretty sure it's going to be profitable for me when discounted that much.

On top of that if I'm getting another $17/year from the seller the next 5 years, even if I have some expenses and have to pay you back some fees of $5 year. If I'm still profiting 7-9 a year, wow what an awesome deal for me. I just put another $35 dollars in my pocket and I have a widget worth $170 all for my initial investment of $70 which after 5 years cost me $35. Yeah, he's a hedge fund manager.

You're right that it doesn't matter what the amount is -- the fact is he's investing substantial money because he thinks he can make it work.

He's also not getting a $170m asset in return, he's getting a $70m asset in return, because the 30 year lease that he has to sign in order to get the $100m makes the team worth $100m less. It's not like he can buy the team while investing $70m, and sell it tommorow for $170m. He's buying the team for $70m with a 30 year lease. The only way to get out of that lease is to put them back in bankruptcy in which case chances are that he loses all $70m invested in the team.

 

[Roadrage]

They should be concerned with the taxpayers best interest, and if they were, they wouldn't be committing tortous interference making the best deal for the taxpayers worse. If they think there is a better option than the one offered by Hulsizer, they are more than free to promote it.

If they are commiting tortous interference then file for relief. Just because it is the only deal, doesn't mean it's the best deal.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

If the elected representatives felt that this was simply a way to spend 2x dollars to make X dollars, then they wouldn't do it. They are privy to much more information than you or I and feel that it's best to spend X dollars now to make Y dollars over time, where the present value of Y is greater than X.

Not necessarily true.

Goldwater is also acting outside of the taxpayers best interest and in an illegal fashion. Their opinion on something is far from credible.

Less likely true, IMO.

 

[crazed323]

Well I'll try to reply maturely, something you've failed to do.

If the elected representatives felt that this was simply a way to spend 2x dollars to make X dollars, then they wouldn't do it. They are privy to much more information than you or I and feel that it's best to spend X dollars now to make Y dollars over time, where the present value of Y is greater than X.

Goldwater is also acting outside of the taxpayers best interest and in an illegal fashion. Their opinion on something is far from credible.

Then why are you posting here? Do you really want to see Phoenix lose it's team? Do you really want to see some rogue 3rd party get in the way of a good deal for all sides?

Governments should be allowed to do what is in the best interest of the citizens unless the law prevents them from doing so... but again, that's 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as whether or not they'd be breaking the law is highly debatable at best.



You're right that it doesn't matter what the amount is -- the fact is he's investing substantial money because he thinks he can make it work. He's also not getting a $170m asset in return, he's getting a $70m asset in return, because the 30 year lease that he has to sign in order to get the $100m makes the team worth $100m less.

Do you even read what you type? This is completely false. It's more relevant then anything right now. If it wasn't relevant we wouldn't be here right now.