Phoenix XXVIII: Lawyers, Bonds and Money

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
From the previous thread:
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.

I got confused in my posts between the agreements as to where that date popped up. When I revisited the post a day or so ago, I thought the date being discussed was in the 2010-11 agreement.

From the 2010-11 agreement
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
5.3 In order to enable the Owners to fulfill their obligations under this agreement .... the Owners will seek approval by the Debtors and the Court for an extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement ..

As I said, they needed to get the approval of the court & the debtors to extend the Partial Assignment Agreement. And if they didn't get their approval, then the things in that linked agreement, like the date, could not dictate much upon the court or the Debtors & the other parties because they did not agree.

From the APA, this date sure ain't a typo: :)
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_1062_3.pdf
(a) Schedule 2.14(a) sets forth all of the Contracts relating to the
AMULA and the operation of the Arena, including the Team's use of the Arena, to which one or
both of the Sellers is a party (the "Glendale Contracts"). The Sellers agree not to reject the
Glendale Contracts prior to the earliest of (i) June 30, 2010, and (ii) the date of a Final Order
confirming a plan of reorganization of Sellers under the Bankruptcy Code (in which case the
Sellers shall take all actions required to ensure that such rejection does not become effective until
June 30, 2010).

(b) At any time prior to the rejection of any Glendale Contract (but not
later than June 30, 2010), the Buyers may elect to assume such Glendale Contract. In the event
the Buyers have elected to assume a Glendale Contract, such Glendale Contract shall be treated
as an Added Contract in accordance with Section 2.9(b) and thereafter shall be deemed an
Assumed Contract.


From the original APA above, if they didn't get those date goal posts moved, then abiding by their APA, if they didn't assume contracts by June 30, 2010, they could not assume them. And the Seller could reject them as of June 30, 2010. As such, without moving those date goal posts, if they didn't act, the deal for Glendale could fall apart. (which I now better understand was your concern).

And I agree that is a significant concern. In glancing through the docket, I have not seen how that was resolved.

Sorry for the confusion.
 

nickschultzfan

Registered User
Jan 7, 2009
11,558
908
What about moving the Phoenix Suns in Jobing.com Arena, put a ECHL/AHL franchise into the US Airways Center to share with the WNBA and AFL franchise already in there.
Jobing.com arena and its location are one of the main factors the Coyotes can't make money.

Do you think the Suns are going to risk that too?
 

aj8000

Registered User
Jun 5, 2010
1,256
35
broke.jpg


Yup... Pennybags owns the parking rights... should have been charging for that parking...

Isn't it called free parking in Monpoly?
 

leoleo3535

Registered User
Feb 25, 2010
2,135
2
hockey rinks
Jobing.com arena and its location are one of the main factors the Coyotes can't make money.

Do you think the Suns are going to risk that too?

The main factor they can't make money is because it is not a hockey market.
The arena is 1st class and is only 18 miles from downtown PHX & 23 miles from the airport.
The transit time is 25-55 minutes............transit time is less of an issue than most other markets.
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,759
2,157
TNSE is the owner of the Moose (I think). I have been wondering for awhile what the value of an AHL team is. If the Moose are moved are they sold? Or does the Moose become another source of income for TNSE if they are moved to another city and operated at a profit. Would seem funny for one owner of an NHL team to own the Farm team of another (conflict of interest).

It will be interesting to see just how this whole musical chairs thing shakes out.


Also, who owns Phoenix's farm club? How does all this work.

yup, I cannot imagine the Canucks (who have an affiliate agreement with the Moose) would be happy with TSNE owning an NHL team.

I think it would make sense for the Canucks to move their affiliate closer to home regardless; they've shown an interest in grabbing a bigger piece of the local sports market for quite some time, with an attempt to get an MLS team (which is coming but and feelers for NBA. Surrey, a suburb of Vancouver, is making noises about building a 10K person arena.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Here is something of concern and may be revealing on this matter:

From the 2010-11 Arena Management and Operations Agreement
between the NHL (Owners) and the City of Glendale
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
5.1 The Owners and the City will use their respective best efforts to cause all of the Debtors' interests, rights and obligations in and under
(i) the Agreement for Replacement of Temporary Parking dated July 1, 2008 and filed with the Glendale City Clerk as Document No. C-5575-1;
(ii) the Collateral and Subordination Agreement dated July 1, 2008 and filed with the Glendale City Clerk as Document No. C-5575-2 and
(iii) the First American Title Insurance Company Construction Disbursement Escrow Agreement, date July 1, 2008 and recorded with the Glendale City Clerk as Document No. C-5575-3
(collectively the "Parking Agreements") to be transferred and assigned to the City, including, if necessary, by effecting the assumption of the Parking Agreements by the Owners from the Debtors in the Bankruptcy case, and, if such assumption is effectuated, immediately transferring and assigning to the City, all of the Owners' interests, rights and obligations in and under the Parking Agreements, all at the City's expense.

5.2 The City will indemnify and hold harmless the indemnified persons (as defined in clause 6.9 [effectively the NHL]) with respect to any and all claims, expenses and losses, arising out of, relating to or in connection with such assumption and transfer of the Parking Agreements ...


So therein, depending on if that happened, may lie Goldwater's concern about the City already owning the Parking Rights. In all the prior agreements I've seen - except the original MUDA and AMULA, the team held those rights or there was some sort of evidence that they did and no evidence I've seen that the city held those rights after the first AMULA and MUDA. After the first AMULA and MUDA, I don't even see the City as a party in a number (if not all) of the parking agreements before this court. But above is a path on how the city might have recently acquired them.

Beyond that, I need to give those clauses some thought.
 
Last edited:

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,759
2,157
Jobing.com arena and its location are one of the main factors the Coyotes can't make money.

Do you think the Suns are going to risk that too?

Maybe if Glendale offers to give them $97m over the next 5 years they'd consider it. :laugh:
 

Grumpz

Registered User
Dec 13, 2010
143
0
Jobing.com arena and its location are one of the main factors the Coyotes can't make money.

Do you think the Suns are going to risk that too?

Enough with the location excuse. In a market where hockey will work, you can put the arena hrs away, and the fans still go. Canadians drove hrs to fill the World Jr seats when hosted in Fargo.

Is jobing.com's location ideal? No. Neither was Winnipeg's, that still average close to 85% in capacity, and neither is Ottawa's from what I hear. Yet they're still averaging 95%.

All a poor location is going to do is weed out the fairweather fans. When your market is hockey nuts, you sell out World Jr, NHL exhibition and World Under 18 games.

Phoenix, new beautiful building and all, won't ever be considered for an event like this. Why not?
 

Jesus Christ Horburn

Registered User
Aug 22, 2008
13,942
1
I kind of agree.

A quick Google search shows that Glendale is about as far away from Phoenix as Kanata is from Ottawa.

While the Sens don't sell out every game, they come much closer than Phoenix does.
 

billycanuck

Registered User
Jobing.com arena and its location are one of the main factors the Coyotes can't make money.

Do you think the Suns are going to risk that too?

The main factor they can't make money is because it is not a hockey market.
The arena is 1st class and is only 18 miles from downtown PHX & 23 miles from the airport.
The transit time is 25-55 minutes............transit time is less of an issue than most other markets.

Exactly, location is not the issue. The Arizona Cardinals stadium is in Jobing.com's backyard, and the fans make it to the Cardinals games. Jobing.com is far better facility and would be a nice facility for the Suns to play in. Better than US Airways Center.
 

crazed323

Registered User
Mar 6, 2011
238
0
Winnipeg
Enough with the location excuse. In a market where hockey will work, you can put the arena hrs away, and the fans still go. Canadians drove hrs to fill the World Jr seats when hosted in Fargo.

Is jobing.com's location ideal? No. Neither was Winnipeg's, that still average close to 85% in capacity, and neither is Ottawa's from what I hear. Yet they're still averaging 95%.

All a poor location is going to do is weed out the fairweather fans. When your market is hockey nuts, you sell out World Jr, NHL exhibition and World Under 18 games.

Phoenix, new beautiful building and all, won't ever be considered for an event like this. Why not?

I would hate to see the WJHC in Phoenix. :eek:
 

CasualFan

Tortious Beadicus
Nov 27, 2009
3,215
0
Bay Area, CA
From the previous thread:


I got confused in my posts between the agreements as to where that date popped up. When I revisited the post a day or so ago, I thought the date being discussed was in the 2010-11 agreement.

From the 2010-11 agreement
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
5.3 In order to enable the Owners to fulfill their obligations under this agreement .... the Owners will seek approval by the Debtors and the Court for an extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement ..

As I said, they needed to get the approval of the court & the debtors to extend the Partial Assignment Agreement. And if they didn't get their approval, then the things in that linked agreement, like the date, could not dictate much upon the court or the Debtors & the other parties because they did not agree.

From the APA, this date sure ain't a typo: :)
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_1062_3.pdf
(a) Schedule 2.14(a) sets forth all of the Contracts relating to the
AMULA and the operation of the Arena, including the Team's use of the Arena, to which one or
both of the Sellers is a party (the "Glendale Contracts"). The Sellers agree not to reject the
Glendale Contracts prior to the earliest of (i) June 30, 2010, and (ii) the date of a Final Order
confirming a plan of reorganization of Sellers under the Bankruptcy Code (in which case the
Sellers shall take all actions required to ensure that such rejection does not become effective until
June 30, 2010).

(b) At any time prior to the rejection of any Glendale Contract (but not
later than June 30, 2010), the Buyers may elect to assume such Glendale Contract. In the event
the Buyers have elected to assume a Glendale Contract, such Glendale Contract shall be treated
as an Added Contract in accordance with Section 2.9(b) and thereafter shall be deemed an
Assumed Contract.


From the original APA above, if they didn't get those date goal posts moved, then abiding by their APA, if they didn't assume contracts by June 30, 2010, they could not assume them. And the Seller could reject them as of June 30, 2010. As such, without moving those date goal posts, if they didn't act, the deal for Glendale could fall apart. (which I now better understand was your concern).

And I agree that is a significant concern. In glancing through the docket, I have not seen how that was resolved.

Sorry for the confusion.

No problem. We are back to where we started: Nobody really knows if the contracts were assumed or not. Either way , it should be a fun ride.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
No Credit? No Problem!

In case some have missed it earlier, here's Plan B:

In case the bonds fail ...


GOOD CREDIT .... BAD CREDIT
EVEN BANKRUPTCY

WE CAN HELP YOU !!






12-08-2008 Hockey in The Desert (Phoenix franchise and finance/business matters)
02-04-2009 Hockey in the Desert II (Phoenix Coyotes franchise and business matters)

05-05-2009 Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
05-07-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part II
05-18-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part III
05-22-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
06-03-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part V
06-09-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VI
06-12-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VII: I'm just waitin' on a judge
06-16-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VIII: It's dead, Jim
06-24-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey
07-25-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part X: The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!
08-03-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XI: A Fistful of Dollars?
08-07-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XII: For a Few Dollars More
08-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIII: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
08-21-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIV: The Wrath of Baum
08-27-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XV - SITREP: SNAFU
09-02-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVI: Barbarian at the Gate
09-08-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVII: Wake Me Up When September Ends
09-10-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVIII: Is that a pale horse in the distance?
09-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum
09-21-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum
09-28-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXI: 2009 -- A Sports Odyssey
10-26-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXII: Long and winding road

Followed up by the ever popular:

11-24-2009 Keeping up with potential owners for NHL Phoenix Coyotes (UPD: Ice Edge signs LOI)
03-14-2010 Part II. Potential owners of NHL's Phoenix Coyotes
03-26-2010 Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)
04-10-2010 Part IV Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy; UPD COG approves Reinsdorf MOU, not IEH MOU
05-02-2010 Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?
05-11-2010 Part VI Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy
05-23-2010 Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-22-2010 Part IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input
07-26-2010 Part X: Phoenix Coyotes - Between Scylla and Charybdis
08-27-2010 Part XI: Phoenix Coyotes -- Greetings, Starfighter, You have been selected ...
09-16-2010 Part XII: Phx Coyotes - Still haven't found what I'm looking for
10-12-2010 Part XIII: Phoenix Coyotes - The Final Cut?
10-27-2010 Part XIV: Phoenix Coyotes - To Infinity And Beyond....
12-05-2010 Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore
12-14-2010 Part XVI: Phoenix -- Money for Nothing
12-20-2010 Part XVII: Phoenix -- Thread Title Available For Lease
01-09-2011 Part XVIII: Phoenix -- Imminence Front
01-24-2011 Phoenix XIXth: Nervous Breakdown
02-02-2011 Phoenix XX: Two weeks
02-11-2011 Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?
02-22-2011 Phoenix XXII: It's Now or Never
02-28-2011 Phoenix XXIII - Bond: The Phoenix Project
03-03-2011 Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?
03-07-2011 Phoenix XXV: Anyone in the theatre seen a pale horse?
03-08-2011 Phoenix XXVI: Pain in the AZ
03-11-2011 Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?
03-16-2011 Phoenix XXVIII: Lawyers, Bonds and Money
 

puckhead103*

Guest
i got a dumb question

could hulsizer use the $197 million glendale gives him to build a rink in scottsdale?
 

Evil Doctor

Cryin' Hank crying
Apr 29, 2009
2,400
6
Cambridge, ON
I would hate to see the WJHC in Phoenix. :eek:

I actually wouldn't have a problem with it. They probably won't be able to charge the ticket prices that they charged in Buffalo or have been charging for Alberta and they probably wouldn't get the sell outs, but I doubt that it would be a disaster. If the comments from the local guys are to be believed about the snowbirds, then would probably be still a pro-Canadian crowd, and would no doubt get a lot of tourists down for the two weeks of the tournament.

It would of course require that: A) Glendale is aware of the tournament, B) Glendale bids on the tournament and C) USA Hockey and IIHF would risk putting a tournament so far from the Canadian border...
 

Dado

Guest
Surely this would satisfy Goldwater, at least on that point no?

All it does is move the temporal location of the gift-giving, unless the NHL is willing to keep those parking rights and sell the team to MH for the $40M that they (in that scenario) paid for the team (plus subsequent losses etc).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->