Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?

[cheswick]

Pllease indicate where in the CoG by-laws it is stated that council approval is required to commence a lawsuit. Maybe it is in there, but I would like to know.

I know this isn't exactly the proof you're looking for but in an interview conducted with Brahm Resnik, Darcy Olsen of GWI said "They announced they were gonna sue us a week ago then they didn't sue, and then we learned yesterday from one of the city councilmen that the city did not in fact take a public vote to sue, that they are not ready yet to do that"

So a Councilmen (Libermann is my guess) tells Olsen that a vote would take place before they sue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoR2qFaa_uo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Jarqui]

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/case/3200

Show me the legal analysis, financial analysis, etc

I see a freedom of information request cat fight and publication of the city's documents but I don't see qualified experts laying out the foundation and justification for Goldwater's position based upon the facts.

 

[Roadrage]

I heartily disagree.

Show us one document GWI has submitted to public scrutiny that backs up their position and outlines in some detail their legal analysis or their financial analysis, etc as it relates to this deal. I have seen absolutely nothing from them except rhetoric.

<snip>

With all that backing up the CoG, it's a wonder the bonds haven't been issued yet and the future of the Coyotes has been saved in the desert as it looks like GWI has zero chance and no case whatsoever.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

With all that backing up the CoG, it's a wonder the bonds haven't been issued yet and the future of the Coyotes has been saved in the desert as it looks like GWI has zero chance and no case whatsoever.

This is what I don't get. If Goldwater really has as little credibility as is claimed, why aren't they just being ignored?

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

Do you mean 'No Money, 'Mo Problems?

This has my vote.

 

[Jarqui]

With all that backing up the CoG, it's a wonder the bonds haven't been issued yet and the future of the Coyotes has been saved in the desert as it looks like GWI has zero chance and no case whatsoever.

I suspect that might be but because they haven't provided much of substance, we don't really know.

I'm always open to the possibility of a better way and that it's not inconceivable that someone, including Goldwater, could come up with something of substance on why the city should not proceed with this deal. But it's real tough to get on board with folks who have ranted about this for two years and shown effectively nothing to back up their position.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Wha? Terrorist attacks 3,000 miles away ruined development in Glendale, AZ?

It's been argued that the Fed easing as a result of those attacks resulted in one of the most significant development booms in the history of the United States.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

Phoenix XXVII: The Suit Life

 

[Roadrage]

I suspect that might be but because they haven't provided much of substance, we don't really know.

I'm always open to the possibility of a better way and that it's not inconceivable that someone, including Goldwater, could come up with something of substance on why the city should not proceed with this deal. But it's real tough to get on board with folks who have ranted about this for two years and shown effectively nothing to back up their position.

I don't think GWI has been ranting about this for two years. Didn't they just start getting involved in the Coyotes debacle within the last year or are my timelines all out of whack?

 

[CasualFan]

In summary, to assess the CoG position we have:
- all the bankruptcy documents
-- with many of the old contracts
-- with financial information
-- with legal positions & legal results
- minutes of Glendale meetings
- videos of public discussions of the issue at Glendale city hall
- the new lease & non relocation agreements
- summary of the deal from Glendale
- a bond statement
-- that includes legal opinion
-- that includes CBRE's present value financial analysis
-- that includes the Walker Parking Report
- Hocking's Parking numbers
- financial numbers on what the city gives and gets and what the team gives and gets
etc

Careful. Those could be full of typos.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

GWI really only got involved once Darcy Olsen took the operation over from Carrie Ann Sitren. And that only happened after Scruggs's opinion piece in the AZ Republic (ie. "Back off Goldwater") and her press conference where she attacked GWI.

Once she went after GWI as an organization, it was time for the President and CEO to step up and defend what GWI stands for.

 

[Fugu]

I once again nominate Phoenix XXVIII: Bonds...Lame Bonds as the title of the next thread....

I like this, and also Lawyers, Bonds & Money (for Lawyers, Guns & Money).

Speak quickly forum as I'm making the new thread right now. Suit Life is good too, just a bit more abstract.

Or: To Sue or Not to Sue? That is the Question!

 

[Jarqui]

I don't think GWI has been ranting about this for two years. Didn't they just start getting involved in the Coyotes debacle within the last year or are my timelines all out of whack?

Their first press release I've seen was May 7, 2009
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2814
and they tried to get involved with the bankruptcy case as a concerned party shortly after that and were rejected by the judge

GWI really only got involved once Darcy Olsen took the operation over from Carrie Ann Sitren. And that only happened after Scruggs's opinion piece in the AZ Republic (ie. "Back off Goldwater") and her press conference where she attacked GWI.

Once she went after GWI as an organization, it was time for the President and CEO to step up and defend what GWI stands for.

After they were rejected from the bankruptcy case, they sued the city for documents - I think around early 2010 June 2009. They've been pretty heavily involved since the bankruptcy filing. (EDIT correction on timing)

 

[BrianSTC]

I like this, and also Lawyers, Bonds & Money (for Lawyers, Guns & Money).

Speak quickly forum as I'm making the new thread right now. Suit Life is good too, just a bit more abstract.

Or: To Sue or Not to Sue? That is the Question!

Phoenix XXXVIII: Welcome To The Party, Darcy!

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Lawyers, Bonds & Money

this

 

[CasualFan]

Here's the Readers Digest Condensed version of the story....

That fictional adaptation was written with all the attributes of the average Wikipedia entry.

 

[Ernie]

That fictional adaptation was written with all the attributes of the average Wikipedia entry.

It's the naivety that stands out to me.

The idea that you can create a "downtown" out of a couple of stadiums and some bars is funny. You need sustainable foot traffic in the daytime to create a downtown, and almost always needs to be a business district, and if not, a major tourist destination.

 

[Don LXXIX]

now with affirmation of a pending lawsuit.

will you explain how this is not simply another "threat" ?

nothing much (okay they were 99% certain and now have bumped that up 1%) has changed with regard to GWI.

 

[Ernie]

will you explain how this is not simply another "threat" ?

nothing much (okay they were 99% certain and now have bumped that up 1%) has changed with regard to GWI.

Bettman was complaining that they've been able to derail things with merely the threat of a lawsuit, that they didn't actually have plans on taking action.

Well, they've made clear they WILL sue if/when the deal completes. No doubt they'd still love to see the deal fail without the suit, but if they do not sue after the deal is complete after guaranteeing it they will lose all credibility in the future.

 

[CasualFan]

The only things of note to me were:

1. GW's press release does not mention the canard about CoG still owning the rights.

2. Their press release seems to give off the impression that they believe the bond issuance to be an inevitability.

As noted prior to the thread going over the cliff with pro/anti Winnipeg, Phoenix, and Goldwater biased posts, we are not in a position to say with any degree of certainty who owns the rights.

Absent a visit to the 1100 or so documents in the bankruptcy case we must accept the very real possibility that the parking rights were not assumed by the NHL. Yesterday we saw that there was indeed a deadline of June 30, 2010 for Glendale Contracts to be treated as Assumed Contracts. Accordingly, the idea that the NHL can simply assume the contracts at any time is inaccurate. Glendale may have themselves a significant problem. I am content to sit back and speculate rather than invest hours in BK document research. If you are inclined to take on that effort, I would be happy to piggyback on the results of your work.

Goldwater definitely made it clear they will not seek injunctive relief prior to the sale. That was about the least surprising element of their press release.

 

[Jarqui]

Might be a typo.

In that agreement you linked, bottom of page 8:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
the Owners will seek approval by the Debtors and the Court for an extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement ...

The only parties that signed that agreement you linked were the city and the NHL. Both of them would be willing to overlook that date. It's what happened when they sought the approval of the extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement with the court and the debtors that the date they agreed upon with them would seem to have more meaning.

I'm sure moving those goal posts had it's own layer of complexity for the various parties affected by each contract, their claim and how the debtor might feel about it.

A typo? That is a rather curious explanation. I do not believe responding to your assertion that the deadline could just be overlooked would serve any purpose.

With your 'typo' post, I went back to discover I'd missed your response.

As I didn't put the date there, I don't know for sure. Maybe they just left it as is pending the court's decision. But the date there has little meaning until the subsequent agreements with the court and the debtor, Moyes took place and only if those subsequent decisions tied to it - which I strongly suspect they would not.

It's not as simple an issue as it might appear - to try to extend it a year. For example, some contracts may expire before June 30, 2011. Other contracts may experience some sort of hardship having the contract tied up for another year, etc. The extended date may have some effect on the details or terms within the various contracts. And naturally, Moyes and probably the judge would like to be done with it asap as well.

The important date would be the one the debtor, the judge, the NHL, the city of Glendale & all the other creditors agreed to. Because that date had not been decided by all the parties when the deal between the NHL and city of Glendale got put together, I doubt the date in their agreement has much weight. It would be superseded by what all the parties agreed to or the judge dictated when the issue got addressed by the court.

 

[Don LXXIX]

Bettman was complaining that they've been able to derail things with merely the threat of a lawsuit, that they didn't actually have plans on taking action.

Well, they've made clear they WILL sue if/when the deal completes. No doubt they'd still love to see the deal fail without the suit, but if they do not sue after the deal is complete after guaranteeing it they will lose all credibility in the future.

and until they actually do.....it is only a statement of an intention, nothing more. Ever hear the phrase; "upon further review..." ?

 

[CasualFan]

With your 'typo' post, I went back to discover I'd missed your response.

As I didn't put the date there, I don't know for sure. Maybe they just left it as is pending the court's decision. But the date there has little meaning until the subsequent agreements with the court and the debtor, Moyes took place and only if those subsequent decisions tied to it - which I strongly suspect they would not.

It's not as simple an issue as it might appear - to try to extend it a year. For example, some contracts may expire before June 30, 2011. Other contracts may experience some sort of hardship having the contract tied up for another year, etc. The extended date may have some effect on the details or terms within the various contracts. And naturally, Moyes and probably the judge would like to be done with it asap as well.

The important date would be the one the debtor, the judge, the NHL, the city of Glendale & all the other creditors agreed to. Because that date had not been decided by all the parties when the deal between the NHL and city of Glendale got put together, I doubt the date in their agreement has much weight. It would be superseded by what all the parties agreed to or the judge dictated when the issue got addressed by the court.

I do not mean to disrespect your opinion on how events may transpire, but I will clarify that there is absolutely no legal merit to anything you have just posted.

 

[Dado]

Phoenix XXXVIII: Another Week a Nothin'

 

[Dado]

GWI threatening to sue...

CoG threatening to sue...

MH threatening to sue...

Who would have ever imagined that Bettman comes out of this looking like the rational one?