Phoenix XXXIII: Sound of Silence

[BuffaloAZ]

Was there any truth to the report that COG had already sold ½ the bonds (or reported they had a local buyer for ½)? For the time being, let’s assume that to be true. The only way I can see this closing is if the NHL offers Hulsizer the same (reported via THN) price of $140 million. Knock off $50 million from the bonds and we are at $90 million Hulsizer (and friends) having to come up with. Now if they could come up with $70, I would think they could do $90. I think I had a question here…Would you think that GWI would see that $50 million as a more reasonable value for parking rights, thus ‘allowing’ the deal to go through? Yes I realize that GWI has no power to stop the deal.

 

[Whileee]

It is strange - almost like a "taxpayer watchdog" deceived them by saying in meetings that they had no problems with the deal and then lowered the boom, huh? Nah, GWI would never do that, would they?

It never fails to amaze me how people do not seem to get the difficult position that COG is in here. If they are required to get a declarative judgment for this, then what about the next thing that GWI wishes to compalin about in COG (and yes, there will be more)? Do they have to get a declarative judgment for that as well? do they - an elected body, mind you - then have to vet everything they do past the GWI and their falsified version of Turken v. Gordon? The fact that they receive derision from people who are in no way able to appreciate the difficulty of the position used to amaze me, but it just makes me chuckle now.

Regarding the time taken to get to the bond market, there are many steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish this.

Perhaps there are som statutory restrictions from using the Enterprise fund. Who knows? I imagine that has been an opportunity they have considered.

My goodness, the GWI's challenge to this deal came as a surprise to Glendale? Days before approving the deal at city council (December 14) the GWI wrote a sternly worded letter urging the COG to reconsider. Could Glendale actually try to claim that they were unaware of the GWI's intentions. I think a much more plausible explanation is that Glendale has always been unsure of the weight of their legal argument and instead of taking the GWI on in court they chose to try the PR and political route. We now know how unwise that approach was.

If Glendale was not prepared to take this to the bond market in December (at the time of finalizing the lease), then they were both unwise and unprepared. Note that at the city council meeting they actually declared an emergency so that Beasley could act in the bond market urgently, as required. It was 6 weeks hence that the GWI wrote a letter to bond agencies.

If Glendale has decided not to get a declarative judgment on this because it sets a bad precedent, then it is I who is compelled to chuckle. They have said that this will cost their burg in excess of $500 million, but they are not going to take the GWI to court lest it set a bad precedent. I think that a more plausible reason is that they are not sure that they would win a legal case, which would indeed be a bad precedent.

I realize that you are unprepared to blame anyone other than the GWI for the current predicament of Glendale, but I think you are letting off other culpable parties far too easily.

 

[Dado]

Lots (think 200+ posts) of good stuff I'm deleting 'cause its not related to Phoenix.

For the sake of clarity, because I truly don't understand the guidelines and I have a feeling I'm not alone, which thread should get an article like "Coyotes headed to Winnipeg" or "Winnipeg gets a team from the desert"?

 

[GSC2k2*]

I think it is quite clear the net present value of the parking rights is less than $100 mil. Only the heavily disputed study found them to be worth $100 mil.

Ah, yes, that "heavily disputed" study. Exactly what were those disputes? They were that (i) Tom Hocking is on a retainer to the COG and (ii) he was sued in another transaction. Does that pretty much capture the nature of the heavy dispute? It must, because no one on these boards was ever able to do any actual math that disputed them, and no one was ever equipped with knowledge or experience so as to dispute his assumptions, that's for sure. If that is the nature of the heavy disputes (which went on while I was away for a while and was not able to demolish them before those "ideas" left the cradle, as I would have done), then let me know, and I will provide a little info on that which would dismiss that line of argument.

The high interest on the bonds made the numbers worse, as it made the NPV of the parking rights worth even less to the city, so if they dip into a cash reserve, they can more credibly use a discount rate of say 6%. At a 6% discount rate, they are arguably around the border of not-proportionate/grossly disproportionate with a NPV of ~$70-75 mil, whereas at 9%, the NPV to the city is under $50 mil, which to me puts them firmly in grossly disproportionate territory.

There you go again, equating discount rates with financing rates. That point was wiped out by others last time we went around that particular maypole. For the last time (hopefully), financing rates are not the same as discount rates. The latter is designed to assess the risk of payment of a cash stream. Financing rates have precisely zip to do with that. The risk of receiving a cash stream is not different whether the underlying asset is financed at 6%, 9% or zero %.

But, I don't see Goldwater backing away even if the city pays cash for these parking rights, as they still have a case, just not as good of one.

I will say that whether they back away or not is not necessarily affected. That is so, though, because they have no case now, but still have not given the appearance of backing away (although IMO the reality has always been that they are doing the equivalent of bluffing on a nothing hand).

 

[Killion]

Moreover, it is amazing to me that they did not go straight to the bond market after the lease approved on December 14. It was a full 6 weeks after that when the GWI sent a letter to the bond brokers.

Ya, ground we've all covered ad nauseum. Though it may be too late (or not) I would really appreciate some clarification from a legal mind (GSC, CF etc) on the following;

1) Why didnt the COG just transfer $100M through Hulsizer to the NHL from its Enterprise Account, then float & sell the Bonds, replenishing the account upon completion of said sale?. Why was it that the buyer & the league were left on the clothesline when that methodology wouldve' pretty much slammed the door shut on the GWI if indeed accessing those funds temporarily to expedite the closing was feasible?.

2) If they can "borrow" from the Enterprise Account, why not do so, dispensing with or perhaps lowering the Bond issuance & support the short by executing a full-on CFD on top of the parking charges?. Does anyone know if in fact the Constitution strictly forbids the use of such accounts for such things or what?. I've assumed it does, which is why were where were at. Still, a niggling question.

Maybe you know the answers Whileee?.

 

[Whileee]

And what happens if they decide to risk a suit from GWI, and the deal that is finalized brings down the wrath of Darcy and ends up in court? The NHL would just sit back for who knows how long and let the legal process play out?

This is a good question, that I don't think has been adequately understood. Did the NHL indicate privately to the COG that they were not prepared to let the Hulsizer deal proceed unless they could clear any and all legal threats from the GWI? Perhaps it was more than the "chill" on the bond market compelling Glendale and friends to try to get the GWI to back off. I have a hard time believing that the NHL would have been sanguine about the Hulsizer deal ending up in court, and potentially unraveling.

 

[wpgallday1960]

COG money is COG money.



1. Given that Hulsizer is guaranteeing that COG will receive value equalling not less than $75M in NPV, it is impossible to overpay (even though, under the gift clause, there is no requirement that the values be equal).



See above. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. If they raise it through a bond offering, it is still taxpayer money that must repay that debt. From a gift clause perspective, it is thoroughly irrelevant. If the parking revenues, etc can pay back a bond issue, they can pay back draws from a COG bank account just as readily. One may argue that those revenues will be insufficient (and be wrong in doing so), but it makes no difference where the monies originally came from. It is not even a question worth debating.



It is strange - almost like a "taxpayer watchdog" deceived them by saying in meetings that they had no problems with the deal and then lowered the boom, huh? Nah, GWI would never do that, would they?

It never fails to amaze me how people do not seem to get the difficult position that COG is in here. If they are required to get a declarative judgment for this, then what about the next thing that GWI wishes to compalin about in COG (and yes, there will be more)? Do they have to get a declarative judgment for that as well? do they - an elected body, mind you - then have to vet everything they do past the GWI and their falsified version of Turken v. Gordon? The fact that they receive derision from people who are in no way able to appreciate the difficulty of the position used to amaze me, but it just makes me chuckle now.

Regarding the time taken to get to the bond market, there are many steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish this.

Perhaps there are som statutory restrictions from using the Enterprise fund. Who knows? I imagine that has been an opportunity they have considered.



Since Hulsizer is bringing an NHL team as an anchor tenant and the anchor tenant will not come unless the arena management is part of the deal, they would have to run a tender which involves the other tenderers bringing an NHL team (or equivalent anchor tenant) as well, in order for it to be apples to apples and provide the same benefit to the COG. Since this is not available, the tender option is moot. Anyone who has thought that this is a tender situation has not really thought this through too thoroughly.

Regarding overpaying, a deal which simply pays for reimbursable expenses, without markup, is BY DEFINITION not overpaying. moreover, the deal would not even cover the basic arena expenses of MH, as i demonstrated a few threads ago right at the beginning of the thread. MH will be $11-13M short of having all of his direct arena expenses covered, and that is without doing anything (like a huge marketing push) beyond what Moyes did.

I find the bolded part amusing. As if the revenue forecasts are ironclad correct. Let's look at the NY Yankees and the parking scenario there - didn't exactly meet forecasts. The fact is none of us know how the forecasts will match actual experience - there are too many unforseen factors that could come into play. I really wish you would preface these statements with "in my opinion" as opposed to stating this as a foregone conclusion.

 

[Whileee]

Ya, ground we've all covered ad nauseum. Though it may be too late (or not) I would really appreciate some clarification from a legal mind (GSC, CF etc) on the following;

1) Why didnt the COG just transfer $100M through Hulsizer to the NHL from its Enterprise Account, then float & sell the Bonds, replenishing the account upon completion of said sale?. Why was it that the buyer & the league were left on the clothesline when that methodology wouldve' pretty much slammed the door shut on the GWI if indeed accessing those funds temporarily to expedite the closing was feasible?.

2) If they can "borrow" from the Enterprise Account, why not do so, dispensing with or perhaps lowering the Bond issuance & support the short by executing a full-on CFD on top of the parking charges?. Does anyone know if in fact the Constitution strictly forbids the use of such accounts for such things or what?. I've assumed it does, which is why were where were at. Still, a niggling question.

Maybe you know the answers Whileee?.

Nope. I don't know why they might not be able to use the Enterprise Fund, though I expect that it might be a bridge too far politically. I remember the sound and fury and contortions caused by the use of the Enterprise Fund to fund the NHL's losses this year. In the city council meeting approving the Ed Lynch went to great lengths to assure councilors that no tax money would be used to support the bond issue. I expect that he knew that city council would not support it otherwise. Perhaps Scruggs just doesn't have the votes on city council to use $200 million in the Enterprise Fund to support the Hulsizer deal.

 

[goyotes]

I don't buy that the NHL would sell to TSNE for $140 M but not to MH. So, from the start I think the story and alleged deal smells of fish.

Bottom line is the CoG will not do anything until time has run out. I give little chance for the team staying in Arizona, but I think Winnipeg has some work to do before the decision is made to relocate the Coyotes.

I continue to believe an 11th hour solution is possible. It just seems too much time, expense and effort has been put into keeping the team in Glendale.

What really sucks is if the fans do not have a chance to give the team a proper send-off. If I had to guess, the CoG has decided not to sell the bonds for an interest rate well below the authorized amount, but too high to meet their financing models.

The NHL is right in setting a deadline.

 

[GSC2k2*]

My goodness, the GWI's challenge to this deal came as a surprise to Glendale? Days before approving the deal at city council (December 14) the GWI wrote a sternly worded letter urging the COG to reconsider. Could Glendale actually try to claim that they were unaware of the GWI's intentions. I think a much more plausible explanation is that Glendale has always been unsure of the weight of their legal argument and instead of taking the GWI on in court they chose to try the PR and political route. We now know how unwise that approach was.

GWI met with COG days AFTER the deal was approved and got confirmation from Mr. Bolick himself that everything seemed okay.

Since the reality is that GWI has always had ZERO case - where is that competing study that GWI had commissioned and had promised to publicly release anyway? - the much more likely scenario is that COG assumed that this was not even a close call and GWI would honor their stateements to COG that this was nothing for them to worry about.

If Glendale was not prepared to take this to the bond market in December (at the time of finalizing the lease), then they were both unwise and unprepared. Note that at the city council meeting they actually declared an emergency so that Beasley could act in the bond market urgently, as required. It was 6 weeks hence that the GWI wrote a letter to bond agencies.

"Both unwise and unprepared"? One really is not in a position to judge that until one knows the many and various steps that are taken in respect of a public offering of bonds. I am prepared to have that discussion with anyone familiar with the process.

If Glendale has decided not to get a declarative judgment on this because it sets a bad precedent, then it is I who is compelled to chuckle. They have said that this will cost their burg in excess of $500 million, but they are not going to take the GWI to court lest it set a bad precedent. I think that a more plausible reason is that they are not sure that they would win a legal case, which would indeed be a bad precedent.

I realize that you are unprepared to blame anyone other than the GWI for the current predicament of Glendale, but I think you are letting off other culpable parties far too easily.

Maybe so. I would have done things differently from COG, but I distrusted them from the beginning, and admittedly I cannot assess how sincere Mr. Bolick may have appeared when he was indicating that there were no problems, and as a rule I take a more aggressive strategic approach in addressing legal/business matters under my purview than is normal in politics (where a more nuanced view may often prevail). I would submit that it is your undeclared support (not overtly, anyway) for other "agendas" that may be influencing your refusal to consider GWI as anything but aboveboard. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Whileee]

I don't buy that the NHL would sell to TSNE for $140 M but not to MH. So, from the start I think the story and alleged deal smells of fish.

Bottom line is the CoG will not do anything until time has run out. I give little chance for the team staying in Arizona, but I think Winnipeg has some work to do before the decision is made to relocate the Coyotes.

I continue to believe an 11th hour solution is possible. It just seems too much time, expense and effort has been put into keeping the team in Glendale.

What really sucks is if the fans do not have a chance to give the team a proper send-off. If I had to guess, the CoG has decided not to sell the bonds for an interest rate well below the authorized amount, but too high to meet their financing models.

The NHL is right in setting another deadline.

I fixed your post (see bolded insertion)...

 

[pirate94]

What really sucks is if the fans do not have a chance to give the team a proper send-off. If I had to guess, the CoG has decided not to sell the bonds for an interest rate well below the authorized amount, but too high to meet their financing models.

I'm sure Winnipeg will see all kinds of Phoenicians coming to support the team throughout the year, just like the Jets fans who made their trips to Phoenix.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I find the bolded part amusing. As if the revenue forecasts are ironclad correct. Let's look at the NY Yankees and the parking scenario there - didn't exactly meet forecasts. The fact is none of us know how the forecasts will match actual experience - there are too many unforseen factors that could come into play. I really wish you would preface these statements with "in my opinion" as opposed to stating this as a foregone conclusion.

It should go without saying.

i have looked over the forecasts in detail. They are extremely conservative. I do not fault them for being conservative, as they are in a bond statement and thus the consultants are at risk of being sued if they turn out to be significantly inaccurate, but they are quite conservative. I am comfortable with the statement that you bolded - what else can I tell ya?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Ya, ground we've all covered ad nauseum. Though it may be too late (or not) I would really appreciate some clarification from a legal mind (GSC, CF etc) on the following;

1) Why didnt the COG just transfer $100M through Hulsizer to the NHL from its Enterprise Account, then float & sell the Bonds, replenishing the account upon completion of said sale?. Why was it that the buyer & the league were left on the clothesline when that methodology wouldve' pretty much slammed the door shut on the GWI if indeed accessing those funds temporarily to expedite the closing was feasible?.

2) If they can "borrow" from the Enterprise Account, why not do so, dispensing with or perhaps lowering the Bond issuance & support the short by executing a full-on CFD on top of the parking charges?. Does anyone know if in fact the Constitution strictly forbids the use of such accounts for such things or what?. I've assumed it does, which is why were where were at. Still, a niggling question.

Maybe you know the answers Whileee?.

Fair questions, K. I myself would like to hear from the COG on this point. I have not seen anything in the AZ Constitution. Certainly thhe gift Clause is not relevant, for reasons mentioned above.

They would seemingly not need to get as complicated as you do above. They could simply spend fund money and then do a bond offering to replenish the enterprise fund (for good lawyers not working via billable hour, simpler often = better ).

I do not know the answer. Maybe it is the eventual solution, who knows?

 

[Killion]

Nope. Perhaps Scruggs just doesn't have the votes on city council to use $200 million in the Enterprise Fund to support the Hulsizer deal.

Perhaps not. However, do you not then find their mechanizations & motivations to be disingenuous?. It should have been "sold" to the Council that Enterprise Funds would indeed be used, replenished by the Bond sale pronto. They are backing the issue regardless, yet they wont dig now, as the hour grows dark, based on their own optimistic projections & potential loss should the team leave?. I really fail to understand that mindset. The Fiesta Bowl appears to be pretty much cooked; the NFL could still be gone for a year; the Cactus League lost a fair amount & developments are way behind schedule. If indeed were considering a house of cards scenario with the Coyotes precipitating a complete breakdown & fall, and they can in fact use these funds to expedite matters, then why arent they?....

 

[Egil]

Ah, yes, that "heavily disputed" study. Exactly what were those disputes? They were that (i) Tom Hocking is on a retainer to the COG and (ii) he was sued in another transaction. Does that pretty much capture the nature of the heavy dispute? It must, because no one on these boards was ever able to do any actual math that disputed them, and no one was ever equipped with knowledge or experience so as to dispute his assumptions, that's for sure. If that is the nature of the heavy disputes (which went on while I was away for a while and was not able to demolish them before those "ideas" left the cradle, as I would have done), then let me know, and I will provide a little info on that which would dismiss that line of argument.

The City got 3 studies, two of which are from reputable firms and found a value of ~$70 mil, and one from a single guy sued for basically fudging numbers that found $100 mil. This is clearly a point for the court to decide, but I would be betting on the judge going with the 2 reputable studies from well known firms over the Tom Hocking study. As a result, I stand by my wording of "heavily disputed", and I think that is a winning argument in court for GWI. You clearly disagree, so can you explain why you feel that the court will use the valuation of the Hocking study over the other 2?

There you go again, equating discount rates with financing rates. That point was wiped out by others last time we went around that particular maypole. For the last time (hopefully), financing rates are not the same as discount rates. The latter is designed to assess the risk of payment of a cash stream. Financing rates have precisely zip to do with that. The risk of receiving a cash stream is not different whether the underlying asset is financed at 6%, 9% or zero %.

You are muddling the point. The discount rate to a particular entity is heavily dependent on their financing rate. As discussed before, if I am borrowing money at x%, then my discount rate MUST BE >= x%. The risk associated with the income stream merely affects the premium over x%. In short, if I borrow money at x% to buy the present value of an income stream valued using a discount rate of y%, then if y < x, I AM GUARANTEED TO LOSE MONEY!

So, I believe my post on this is 100% correct, and if the city uses CASH ON HAND instead of bonds, they have more flexibility is arguing the discount rate. If they use bonds, then they are stuck with that rate as a minimum (and really, with a risk premium, they need to go a bit higher). There is simply no getting around this point, no matter how much you try to confuse the issue.

I will say that whether they back away or not is not necessarily affected. That is so, though, because they have no case now, but still have not given the appearance of backing away (although IMO the reality has always been that they are doing the equivalent of bluffing on a nothing hand).

If they are bluffing on a nothing hand then how are they having any effect on this at all? With bonds at 8-9% interest, I think they have a pretty slam dunk winner of a case. At 6%, I think it gets murky (as it does if the city pays using cash on hand), and the case hinges on the interpretation of "grossly disproportionate". I think paying double is clearly "grossly disproportionate", but I can't say that paying 25% more is clearly "grossly disproportionate"? Much more murky at that point.

 

[Whileee]

GWI met with COG days AFTER the deal was approved and got confirmation from Mr. Bolick himself that everything seemed okay.

Since the reality is that GWI has always had ZERO case - where is that competing study that GWI had commissioned and had promised to publicly release anyway? - the much more likely scenario is that COG assumed that this was not even a close call and GWI would honor their stateements to COG that this was nothing for them to worry about.



"Both unwise and unprepared"? One really is not in a position to judge that until one knows the many and various steps that are taken in respect of a public offering of bonds. I am prepared to have that discussion with anyone familiar with the process.



Maybe so. I would have done things differently from COG, but I distrusted them from the beginning, and admittedly I cannot assess how sincere Mr. Bolick may have appeared when he was indicating that there were no problems. I would submit that it is your undeclared support (not overtly, anyway)for other "agendas" that may be directing your refusal to consider GWI as anything but aboveboard. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Please don't misunderstand; I don't support the GWI's agenda or how they have approached this. But I think that their agenda has been clear to the City of Glendale and other relevant parties for at least two years. They were clearly not taken seriously enough, and relations with them were clearly mismanaged by the City of Glendale.

I have also directed my criticism at the NHL, who have talked plenty about their interest in keeping a team in Glendale without making the necessary financial concessions to make it happen. I think I understand why they have not, but their rhetoric has not been matched by their actions. As for the parade of ownership hopefuls, not one of them has put forward the necessary capital to close this deal, despite having had Glendale essentially give them a fantastic arena and almost all ancillary revenue for a song. It is even more flabbergasting that this has happened in one of the most desirable markets in N. America.

I think that the possible relocation of the Coyotes is based on brute economic facts, not on the political machinations of a right-wing interest group that has benefited more than they ought to from this, nor from the idle chatter from Winnipeggers and others on this and other discussion boards.

 

[Whileee]

Perhaps not. However, do you not then find their mechanizations & motivations to be disingenuous?. It should have been "sold" to the Council that Enterprise Funds would indeed be used, replenished by the Bond sale pronto. They are backing the issue regardless, yet they wont dig now, as the hour grows dark, based on their own optimistic projections & potential loss should the team leave?. I really fail to understand that mindset. The Fiesta Bowl appears to be pretty much cooked; the NFL could still be gone for a year; the Cactus League lost a fair amount & developments are way behind schedule. If indeed were considering a house of cards scenario with the Coyotes precipitating a complete breakdown & fall, and they can in fact use these funds to expedite matters, then why arent they?....

I have given up trying to understand how the City of Glendale and its administrators do business. As you know, I became thoroughly disgusted with their approach when it became known that city administrators had withheld critical information from city councilors and the public in advance of the vote on the Hulsizer lease. I was also disenchanted by the performance by Scruggs and Lynch in the council meeting, wherein both tried to paper over the likely need for tax funds to support the Hulsizer deal. Perhaps they were just trying to avoid the GWI legal challenge, but I think that if they truly believe in the economic necessity of keeping the Coyotes then they should have tackled this in a more forthright manner, and not through obfuscation.

Having said that, I have a hard time believing that they have not turned over every rock to find a way of making the deal with Hulsizer work. We should soon see if there are any other options.

 

[Killion]

Fair questions, K. I myself would like to hear from the COG on this point. I have not seen anything in the AZ Constitution. Certainly thhe gift Clause is not relevant, for reasons mentioned above. Maybe it is the eventual solution, who knows?

Ya, I complicated it with hypotheticals, sorry bout that, streaming consciousness n' all, but still; I was taken aback & thought to myself in December "well hang on here, why should MH & the NHL be held up with the COG's Bond sale?".... Just pay them now, replenish later. If the Council is voting responsibly & truly believed that the parking revs' etc would cover the debt servicing charges then they shouldve' put their money where their mouths are & paid the buyer/seller instead of passing the buck. Now, beyond that little rant, if they can legally use these funds, then just what in tarnation are they doing?. Run it home already.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

Mayor Scruggs interview....

http://www.aztv.com/global/video/fl...dTag=Programming&activePane=info&rnd=78657059

 

[Tommy Hawk]

COG money is COG money.

1. Given that Hulsizer is guaranteeing that COG will receive value equalling not less than $75M in NPV, it is impossible to overpay (even though, under the gift clause, there is no requirement that the values be equal).

I never indicate it is required the values be equal. I do not recall the exact working of the CityNorth ruling on reasonable, disproportionate or grossly disproportionate or whatever. If they overpay more than what a judge would find acceptable, that would violate the gift clause. And I am sure that some judge's views would differ from others.

See above. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money. If they raise it through a bond offering, it is still taxpayer money that must repay that debt. From a gift clause perspective, it is thoroughly irrelevant. If the parking revenues, etc can pay back a bond issue, they can pay back draws from a COG bank account just as readily. One may argue that those revenues will be insufficient (and be wrong in doing so), but it makes no difference where the monies originally came from. It is not even a question worth debating.

You are apparently in the minority that think the parking would be able to cover the bond requirements.

It is strange - almost like a "taxpayer watchdog" deceived them by saying in meetings that they had no problems with the deal and then lowered the boom, huh? Nah, GWI would never do that, would they?

Proof that that happened other than MH's word?

It never fails to amaze me how people do not seem to get the difficult position that COG is in here. If they are required to get a declarative judgment for this, then what about the next thing that GWI wishes to complain about in COG (and yes, there will be more)? Do they have to get a declarative judgment for that as well? do they - an elected body, mind you - then have to vet everything they do past the GWI and their falsified version of Turken v. Gordon? The fact that they receive derision from people who are in no way able to appreciate the difficulty of the position used to amaze me, but it just makes me chuckle now.

The Mayor et al put the CoG in this difficult position. I sympathize with the citizens for having these clowns running their city.

No one is indicating the CoG has to run everything by GI but think about this - the kept the information of all the contracts etc from GI because they said there were no contracts signed, etc.

GI may not be guiltless in this fiasco but they should bear only a small protion of responsibility for this fiasco. CoG, GB, and others should bear the lion's share of the responsibility.

Regarding the time taken to get to the bond market, there are many steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish this.

Perhaps there are some statutory restrictions from using the Enterprise fund. Who knows? I imagine that has been an opportunity they have considered.

Since Hulsizer is bringing an NHL team as an anchor tenant and the anchor tenant will not come unless the arena management is part of the deal, they would have to run a tender which involves the other tenderers bringing an NHL team (or equivalent anchor tenant) as well, in order for it to be apples to apples and provide the same benefit to the COG. Since this is not available, the tender option is moot. Anyone who has thought that this is a tender situation has not really thought this through too thoroughly.

Regarding overpaying, a deal which simply pays for reimbursable expenses, without markup, is BY DEFINITION not overpaying. moreover, the deal would not even cover the basic arena expenses of MH, as i demonstrated a few threads ago right at the beginning of the thread. MH will be $11-13M short of having all of his direct arena expenses covered, and that is without doing anything (like a huge marketing push) beyond what Moyes did.

First of all the CoG had plenty of time to begin lining up everything needed for a bond issue before they voted on the contract in December, of which the contract was not even a final version.

Secondly, as for using the fund, there may be requirements but it still does not change the value of the parking as compared to the cost.

Thirdly, as far as the arena management situation goes, there are not a lot of apples to compare the situation. The CoG never even looked at splitting the arena management from the team. Why? Who knows. The CoG may be much better off splitting the two things. Charge the Yotes 1 million a year in rent, give them the parking revenue for their events and part of concessions associated with those events, get a professional arena manager to manage the arrangement and the arena. I bet it wouldn't cost CoG up to 20 mil per year!

CoG has blinders on that this is the only way things can work. They never even explored other options and for that they deserve what they get.

 

[LadyStanley]

For the sake of clarity, because I truly don't understand the guidelines and I have a feeling I'm not alone, which thread should get an article like "Coyotes headed to Winnipeg" or "Winnipeg gets a team from the desert"?

It may apply to both.

However, the discussion in the Phoenix thread would talk about the end(ings), compared to the Winnipeg thread where the future and beginnings would be emphasized.

For instance, discussion of the MTS center -- unless it's directly compared to Jobing.com arena -- should only be discussed in the Winnipeg thread. As should the state of the "Jetsmeter".

So, using the example of the links from last night, all the discussion of the STH call should have been on the Winnipeg thread. (As it had nothing to do with Phoenix.) It may be noted in this thread as one more sign that there is no (near) future for a NHL franchise in Phoenix.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Fair questions, K. I myself would like to hear from the COG on this point. I have not seen anything in the AZ Constitution. Certainly thhe gift Clause is not relevant, for reasons mentioned above.

They would seemingly not need to get as complicated as you do above. They could simply spend fund money and then do a bond offering to replenish the enterprise fund (for good lawyers not working via billable hour, simpler often = better ).

I do not know the answer. Maybe it is the eventual solution, who knows?

How do you figure the gift clause is not relevant? Taxpayer money buying something for x amount that may not be valued anywhere close to that x amount. As you have stated numerous times, funding source does not make a difference. If dropping 100 mil for parking worth 60 mil violates the gift clause, the source of the 100 mil doesn't matter as long as it comes from taxpayer funds.

This does, however, eliminate the argument of MH using CoG's credit, unless they replenish the funds using a bond issue.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Funny coincidences on the radio this morning.

in 1996 Jeff Stoughton won the World Curling Championships, Detroit Red Wings eliminated the Jets from the playoffs

in 2011 Jeff Stoughton wins his first World Curling Championship since 1996 and Wings are 1-0 on the Coyotes in the playoffs

CONSPIRUHCEE!!!!

 

[Dado]

Does that clarify things?

Yes, it does, thank you.