Phoenix XXVI: Pain in the AZ

[hfboardsuser]

Without those 40+ dates that bring people down to the arena, what other attraction is there for people to come out?.

Concerts? It's an arena, after all. It can host many different types of events.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Over the years, as this case developed, a clear path to the team's ownership of the parking rights was established. However, to my knowledge it has never been documented or corroborated that the path was actually taken by the NHL.

Absent a disclosure by Goldwater to show that it was not taken or a disclosure by Glendale to show that it was, all we can do is speculate. Of all the bizarre turns this saga has taken, the fact that neither side has run to a hilltop to show irrefutable evidence of their claim is the one that stands out most to me. This is especially curious because, as Mork pointed out earlier, Glendale was fully aware that Goldwater was poised to challenge the deal. Not having all of the documents that prove the constitutional validity of the transaction ready is a rather curious approach.

I think you assume a little too much. No one should suggest that CoG did not have all of the key documents together that would have been sufficient. Really, there are only a few.

The reality may well be that between the complex structure of the agreements, the bankruptcy proceedings, and the NHL's schedules for assumption of contracts - neither Goldwater nor Glendale truly knows who owns the parking rights.

Regarding Glendale's level of understanding, I would suggest to you that, since they reflected the fact that the developer and ultimately arena manager/team owned them on multiple occasions within the recitals of executed legal documents (including the pathways through which it occurred), it seems pretty clear that CoG, Ellman and Moyes and their respective counsel all knew who owned the parking rights as well.

I know you have taken issue with my questions as to whether GWI's staff have the abilities to figure this out, but I would point to the characterization of the transaction as a sale-buyback in the GWI-to-underwriter letter as evidence of that. Since there is nothing in the new lease actually transferring parking rights to Hulsizer in the first place (a pretty essential element to fit the first part of that supposed equation), that would seem to be a profound disconnect. As well, Ms. Olsen's suggestion that representations of MH in the lease as to the ownership of parking rights are somehow insufficient is so astounding that, if one took them at face value as a true statement of their analysis, one would be led to think (as I was) that they could not read legal documents.

That said, I should say that I no longer necessarily think that GWI staff are incapable of reading legal documents. It is pretty clear at this point that this has nothing to do with legal positions. GWI has other agenda items, and their dubious legal "argument" is merely a tool to serve that agenda.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Concerts? It's an arena, after all. It can host many different types of events.

Jobing.com arena events calendar.

http://jobingarena.com/events.aspx?CalDate=2011-Mar-01

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Phil Lieberman is IMO a doddering fool who has expressed equally nonsensical statements (such as his goofy interpretation of the $25 fund) in the past. I discount it until corroborated by someone who is not clearly addle-minded.

Ever the diplomat

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Jobing.com arena events calendar.

http://jobingarena.com/events.aspx?CalDate=2011-Mar-01

Wow, nothing between Yanni on May 15 and Keith Urban on October 7. Are they trying to save on A/C costs in the summer or something?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Re: GWI

As a resident of Alberta, I place an intrinsic value on our version of GWI, the "Parkland Institute", which is based out of the University of Alberta and promotes non-partisan public policy research.

The GWI is not a non-partisan entity, nor is it based out of a university research background, so I wouldn't call it a "version" of Parkland.

GWI, and other organizations like it, are a popular option for wealthy Americans to exert political influence without taking a highly-visible public stance on the issues. Large campaign donations have to go on public record; donations toward lobbying efforts do not. There is little doubt as to the hardline political agenda that lies behind organizations like it, on both sides of the political spectrum. GWI is wading into this battle with a long history of fighting environmental regulation, public-education intitiatives, campaign finance reform, and healthcare reform.

And, importantly, these are not the kinds of organizations that attract principled defenders of the democratic process. They are, in effect, a combination lobbyist-media entity, and you can imagine the sort of people that do well in that field. Fighting people like this can get very messy, and I would imagine that they like it that way... which is why they told Bettman they would only meet him in a public forum. They thrive on that sort of publicity.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Re: GWI

As a resident of Alberta, I place an intrinsic value on our version of GWI, the "Parkland Institute", which is based out of the University of Alberta and promotes non-partisan public policy research.

Is THAT what you think the Goldwater Institute is?

They are not.

 

[adrenaline]

Thanks, I see that now, but that does not even make sense. Phil Lieberman is IMO a doddering fool who has expressed equally nonsensical statements (such as his goofy interpretation of the $25 fund) in the past. I discount it until corroborated by someone who is not clearly addle-minded.
.

Strange that you would discount it so easily as it's coming from the horses mouth.. Since bettman met with the Councillors yesterday Lieberman would have first hand knowledge.

Its personally hard to believe Bettman would of requested it given the current deadlock in the agreement, but this could be bettmans exit strategy. That being making the deal too hard to swallow for more COG board members so they vote down the deal (if given the option tuesday) or to scuttle the deal now.

My feeling is that Bettman wants the deal dead now since they don't seeing it moving ahead anytime soon, but is putting the screws to everyone else so they can re-direct blame.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I understand a lot of people have a serious disdain for the GWI. Most of them, Coyotes fans, or who would hate for such an institution to "run their team out of town." However, these groups do serve a function. Without them, there'd be a lot of nasty things that would come to fruition without the tax paying public knowing about until it was too late for anyone to express their concern.

Now, it's a shame a city like Glendale put its entire financial wellbeing on the line behind a hockey team in the desert...and I understand there are a lot of people that stand to be impacted by this going forward.

However, I still think the problems started as soon as people felt it was a good idea (lots of fingers to be pointed here) to build up an entire area on the notion that the game of hockey would be popular in an area where ice doesn't even naturally exist...and a foundation for enthusiasm around the game was likewise nonexistent.
It's a crappy situation. No doubt. But it was a crappy situation before this egg was even hatched.

Now they're trying to put out the fire by dousing it kerosene...and if that doesn't work...they'll try blowing it up with TNT...with further contingencies in place to explore the options of...you get the point.

I know the league wants to plop a team in the lap of every major TV market out there. I love hockey...and often wonder how others cannot. I alway feel as though if I bring people to games they'll sit there and say "Oh my GOD. How did I not know about this incredible game before???" Some folks really like it, and some don't. It just seems like the league has tried to force itself upon certain places with the mentality that a square peg will fit in a round hole if you beat the ever livin' **** out of it long enough, and hard enough. And...if it doesn't work out...all the other teams in the league can chip in some of their revenue for our lack of understanding our own game.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I just saw that someone else (adrenaline , thanks) answered this. I was not referring the MH claim of $40M in losses, but Lieberman saying the CoG was asked for $40M more.

Lieberman did not specify what the $40M was for, but it could be for the losses that MH was quoted for, and because he won't pay more into the team, somebody has to cover those losses.

Yep, thanks, i got that, and replied already regarding the ability of anyone to rely on councillor Lieberman (the man who has been the butt of endless cruel jokes and whose intelligence was roundly denounced by legions of Winnipeg supporters, as we both know).

Ever the diplomat

+1, as the kids say.

I have tons of diplomacy in my toolbag, but same as with tact, ya gotta pay extra for that.

 

[NHLfan4life]

Re: GWI

As a resident of Alberta, I place an intrinsic value on our version of GWI, the "Parkland Institute", which is based out of the University of Alberta and promotes non-partisan public policy research. I recognize many of the tactics GWI has employed to date because it's how the Parkland Institute often must do things. It seems once a year, either provincial or local government attempts to rush some concerning piece of policy through with little or no public consultation. An example: back in 2009, City of Edmonton city council held a secret vote with regards to the privatization of the city's power generation arm. Nobody was told anything about it, and it was almost a month before it even came to light.

The Parkland Institute publicized the issue, leading three provincial unions to sue the City in an attempt to stop the sale. While I'm sure city council was upset at the prospect of their $5B transaction being nullified, it was clearly a dirty play and the city likely recognized the battle they would have had on their hands had the public actually been allowed to exercise their democratic right to inform their representative councilor of their opinion beforehand.

Similarly, while I can understand why Coyotes fans, Bettman and the four COG councilors in support of the sale are upset, every democracy needs a body that is free to say "Woah, let's back up a minute here. Let's get some more information before you do this." While it sometimes requires a bit game play to accomplish that, if governments respected the democratic process in the first place, none of it would be necessary.

Again, I think people are confusing democracy with politics. They are not the same.

 

[LeftCoast]

Could someone answer this for me?

If I'm following things correctly, the NHL currently owns the Parking Rights as the owners of the Coyotes, correct?

If that is the case, does Hulsizer need to purchase either these rights or the coyotes prior to selling them to the COG, since he needs that $100 mill to purchase the team?

The reason I ask is because GB seemed to be distancing himself for the deal between Hulsizer and the COG, even though it would seem that it has to be a three way deal to work correctly.

It's complicated.

Initially, the Coyotes acquired the parking rights in the initial lease - Arena Management and Use Agreement or AMULA. On this lease, Jerry Moyes is the Lessee, the City of Glendale is the lessor. The parking rights go with this original lease or AMULA.

Now we try to follow the bouncing ball.

During the bankruptcy auction - both the Balsillie bid and NHL bid were rejected, but the NHL was permitted to modify its bid to address deficiencies. The NHL eventually bought the team from the Coyotes estate for $140M. I do not believe at this time that the NHL acquired the lease of any of its rights or obligations.

If the NHL purchased the AMULA, then it includes both the parking rights AND the use agreement that requires the team to stay in Glendale until 2041. the parking rights, and the restriction that the team not move from Glendale are bound to the same lease. However, since the NHL has always maintained the option to sell the team to a buyer who would move the team, I don't imagine the NHL assumed the lease at this time.

Subsequent to this, the NHL negotiated with the City of Glendale an interim lease agreement to allow the NHL owned Coyotes to playout the 2009-10 season in Glendale, while a buyer for the team was sought. If the NHL had acquired the AMULA, they would not have needed to negotiate an interim lease with the City (except perhaps to lower the team's payments). When a suitable buyer was not found, the NHL extended this 1 year lease agreement under the conditions that the City put $25M in escrow against team losses for the 2010-11 season. This further confirms that the Coyotes estate, not the NHL owns the lease, including the parking rights. If the NHL was bound by the original lease, they would have no leverage to get the city to commit $25M because they could not move the team under the terms of the lease.

Since then, Michael Hulsizer has negotiated a new modified lease and use agreement with the City of Glendale and simultaneously agreed to purchase the Coyotes from the NHL for $170M or so. Did this new modified lease (yet to be executed) transfer the parking rights to Hulsizer? If so, what consideration does the CoG get for this (apparently) $100M asset?

So - where are the parking rights? As far as I can tell, the Coyotes estate (essentially Jerry Moyes), NOT the NHL, owns the parking rights. If/when the team moves from Glendale, it will violate the use clause of the AMULA terminating the lease and the parking rights along with the arena would revert to the City of Glendale. As the use clause is violated, the City could try to sue the bankrupt estate for performance of the lease, but good luck collecting.

The new Hulsizer lease negotiated in November, when executed probably just amends and transfers the old lease with all of its (modified) rights and obligations to Hulsizer. But this is little more than an elaborate in and out scheme. Hulsizer is acquiring the parking rights, along with the arena lease for basically nothing, and then being paid $100M for rights to parking, that he is being given for free. The city was under no obligation to structure the deal this way. They could have easily just cancelled the old lease and written a new AMULA with Hulsizer, with the parking rights left out. The deal was very clearly structured as a pretext for the city to hand Hulsizer $100M.

This is why the Goldwater Institute contends that the City of Glendale owns the parking rights. It seems very complex, and I could very well be wrong, but this is what I get from everything I can dig up on the lease.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Jobing.com arena events calendar.

http://jobingarena.com/events.aspx?CalDate=2011-Mar-01

Wow. After the Coyotes wrap up their tenure in the desert on April 8th (playoffs not withstanding) the arena currently has a whopping 4 events on the calendar in the months leading up to what would be the beginning of next season in October.

The line-up includes the Nuclear Cowboyz, Kenny Chesney's "Going Coastal" Tour, Yani - in concert, and Keith Urban's Get Closer World Tour.

I understand there could be other dates filled in between now and then...but seriously? FOUR non-hockey related events in the next six months? How the **** are you supposed to make any kind of real revenue, parking or otherwise, with four events in six months...and 41 home hockey games (plus whatever events go on during that stretch)?

 

[hfboardsuser]

Jobing.com arena events calendar.

http://jobingarena.com/events.aspx?CalDate=2011-Mar-01

Regardless of how it is being used, numerous other arenas in North America prove that it's entirely possible not to have as many "dark days".

Look at Rexall Place, for example. No one would ever argue Edmonton is a cultural center and it's often passed over by big acts whose live show logistics are not accommodated by the aging facility. Yet it hosts an event almost every week and both the Oil Kings and Oilers are forced on a road trip every year by the Canadian Finals Rodeo.

Here's an example for the off-season:

July 6th to 10th- Cirque du Soleil (circus)
July 12th- Backstreet Boys/NKOTB (concert)
July 16th- Kenny Chesney (concert)
July 17th- Katy Perry (concert)
July 22nd to 31st- Capital EX events (annual summer carnival)

Almost every non-setup day there's an event. What's Jobing.com's excuse?

 

[NHLfan4life]

The GWI is not a non-partisan entity, nor is it based out of a university research background, so I wouldn't call it a "version" of Parkland.

GWI, and other organizations like it, are a popular option for wealthy Americans to exert political influence without taking a highly-visible public stance on the issues. Large campaign donations have to go on public record; donations toward lobbying efforts do not. There is little doubt as to the hardline political agenda that lies behind organizations like it, on both sides of the political spectrum. GWI is wading into this battle with a long history of fighting environmental regulation, public-education intitiatives, campaign finance reform, and healthcare reform.

And, importantly, these are not the kinds of organizations that attract principled defenders of the democratic process. They are, in effect, a combination lobbyist-media entity, and you can imagine the sort of people that do well in that field. Fighting people like this can get very messy, and I would imagine that they like it that way... which is why they told Bettman they would only meet him in a public forum. They thrive on that sort of publicity.

Another series of great points. They have an agenda and their arrogance may be their downfall. A lot of people think GB is arrogant but he's supposed to be in a way as the commish. I feel, soon the GI will start rubbing people the wrong way. The fact that Darcy Olsen went on Canadian radio before anything else shows her arrogance and desire for attention. They are supposed to be a watchdog, not a PR hound.

 

[Kid_Roll]

Wow, nothing between Yanni on May 15 and Keith Urban on October 7. Are they trying to save on A/C costs in the summer or something?

Yanni is going to blow a lot of minds. 4-5 months is the usual recovery time for a Yanni concert.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

What's Jobing.com's excuse?

Arizona economy vs Alberta economy

 

[go_leafs_go02]

and there's a perfectly suitable arena IN downtown Phoenix that's available.

Hint - it's where the Suns play.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Any AHL team would be geographically challenged (nearest teams in Texas or Oklahoma); their travel budget would probably be close to what a NHL team would be with all of the plane rides. And that AHL team may have to pay additional monies for opponent travel.

The AHL is really pursuing that national footprint, though. What used to be a Maritime/New England/New York league is all over the map now. The AHL is in Charlotte, San Antonio, Cleveland, Houston, Austin, Oklahoma City, Chicago, and Milwaukee. Most of those rinks are either NBA arenas themselves or close to that standard. That seems to be the future of the AHL, not the cozy rinks in Glens Falls and Binghamton. To that end, a Phoenix franchise would fit perfectly in the AHL. Even with travel costs, the costs of running an AHL team will still be much, much, much lower than running the Coyotes. Affordable family fun in the suburbs: that's what the AHL is all about. Perfect for Glendale.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I think it's interesting to see the radically different interpretations of Bettman's little press conference on this forum.

The pro-relocation crowd sees it as a sign that the team is done in Phoenix, and will be moving in the near future, while the pro-Coyotes crowd sees the exact opposite. I don't think that whole thing accomplished anything other than reinforcing each side's opinion.

 

[Roadrage]

Regardless of how it is being used, numerous other arenas in North America prove that it's entirely possible not to have as many "dark days".

Look at Rexall Place, for example. No one would ever argue Edmonton is a cultural center and it's often passed over by big acts whose live show logistics are not accommodated by the aging facility. Yet it hosts an event almost every week and both the Oil Kings and Oilers are forced on a road trip every year by the Canadian Finals Rodeo.

Here's an example for the off-season:

July 6th to 10th- Cirque du Soleil (circus)
July 12th- Backstreet Boys/NKOTB (concert)
July 16th- Kenny Chesney (concert)
July 17th- Katy Perry (concert)
July 22nd to 31st- Capital EX events (annual summer carnival)

Almost every non-setup day there's an event. What's Jobing.com's excuse?

To be fair, Rexall Place doesn't have any comparable sized arena to compete against for big concerts whereas Jobing does have America West and a few smaller venues.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Is THAT what you think the Goldwater Institute is?

They are not.

I think that's what they are because that's what they call themselves:

"The Goldwater Institute was established in 1988 as an independent, non-partisan research and educational organization dedicated to the study of public policy."

That's almost word-for-word how the Parkland Institute describes their mission. Although I'm not overly familiar with GWI's other work,the fellows I see listed on their website are respected public policy academics and that behooves me to give them the benefit of the doubt. What, beyond wealthy board members, makes them some sort of evil and publicity-hungry entity?

 

[Fugu]

It's complicated.

Initially, the Coyotes acquired the parking rights in the initial lease - Arena Management and Use Agreement or AMULA. On this lease, Jerry Moyes is the Lessee, the City of Glendale is the lessor. The parking rights go with this original lease or AMULA.

Now we try to follow the bouncing ball.

During the bankruptcy auction - both the Balsillie bid and NHL bid were rejected, but the NHL was permitted to modify its bid to address deficiencies. The NHL eventually bought the team from the Coyotes estate for $140M. I do not believe at this time that the NHL acquired the lease of any of its rights or obligations.

If the NHL purchased the AMULA, then it includes both the parking rights AND the use agreement that requires the team to stay in Glendale until 2041. the parking rights, and the restriction that the team not move from Glendale are bound to the same lease. However, since the NHL has always maintained the option to sell the team to a buyer who would move the team, I don't imagine the NHL assumed the lease at this time.

Subsequent to this, the NHL negotiated with the City of Glendale an interim lease agreement to allow the NHL owned Coyotes to playout the 2009-10 season in Glendale, while a buyer for the team was sought. If the NHL had acquired the AMULA, they would not have needed to negotiate an interim lease with the City (except perhaps to lower the team's payments). When a suitable buyer was not found, the NHL extended this 1 year lease agreement under the conditions that the City put $25M in escrow against team losses for the 2010-11 season. This further confirms that the Coyotes estate, not the NHL owns the lease, including the parking rights. If the NHL was bound by the original lease, they would have no leverage to get the city to commit $25M because they could not move the team under the terms of the lease.

Since then, Michael Hulsizer has negotiated a new modified lease and use agreement with the City of Glendale and simultaneously agreed to purchase the Coyotes from the NHL for $170M or so. Did this new modified lease (yet to be executed) transfer the parking rights to Hulsizer? If so, what consideration does the CoG get for this (apparently) $100M asset?

So - where are the parking rights? As far as I can tell, the Coyotes estate (essentially Jerry Moyes), NOT the NHL, owns the parking rights. If/when the team moves from Glendale, it will violate the use clause of the AMULA terminating the lease and the parking rights along with the arena would revert to the City of Glendale. As the use clause is violated, the City could try to sue the bankrupt estate for performance of the lease, but good luck collecting.

The new Hulsizer lease negotiated in November, when executed probably just amends and transfers the old lease with all of its (modified) rights and obligations to Hulsizer. But this is little more than an elaborate in and out scheme. Hulsizer is acquiring the parking rights, along with the arena lease for basically nothing, and then being paid $100M for rights to parking, that he is being given for free. The city was under no obligation to structure the deal this way. They could have easily just cancelled the old lease and written a new AMULA with Hulsizer, with the parking rights left out. The deal was very clearly structured as a pretext for the city to hand Hulsizer $100M.

This is why the Goldwater Institute contends that the City of Glendale owns the parking rights. It seems very complex, and I could very well be wrong, but this is what I get from everything I can dig up on the lease.

What complicates matters further is that the Moyes estate terminated the original lease after the 2009-10 season. If the NHL simply extended the lease under the same terms for an additional year, they still would not have been handed the parking rights (or given an asset ostensibly worth $100m for $0). The NHL appears to never have actually purchased these rights, nor even asked for them. Moyes seems to have washed his hands of the entire affair.

Do they belong to Judge Baum?

 

[cbcwpg]

Another series of great points. They have an agenda and their arrogance may be their downfall. A lot of people think GB is arrogant but he's supposed to be in a way as the commish. I feel, soon the GI will start rubbing people the wrong way. The fact that Darcy Olsen went on Canadian radio before anything else shows her arrogance and desire for attention. They are supposed to be a watchdog, not a PR hound.

She was invited by CJOB to come on the radio, obviously because this is a hot topic in Winnipeg and the station is looking for listeners, no different than when others from Arizona have been asked to come on the air. She ( Darcy Olsen ) did not go looking for air time. And if you listen to the show, it was just a general discussion that stated whats going on as we all have heard.

 

[BrianSTC]

Thanks, I see that now, but that does not even make sense. Phil Lieberman is IMO a doddering fool who has expressed equally nonsensical statements (such as his goofy interpretation of the $25 fund) in the past. I discount it until corroborated by someone who is not clearly addle-minded.

You dismissing this so quickly reinforces my belief that lawyers are focused more on winning than finding out the truth.