Phoenix XXXIV: Project Mayhem

[peter sullivan]

Hey, no sweat.



A pretty odd one to pick, Peter. I was spot on on that one. Unlike everyone else up to that point, I was the only one who read the relevant provisions of the COG/NHL extension agreement. My description of the agreement was 100% spot on.

Now, you might argue that they are not replenishing the "enterprise fund" with the $25M in Ellman parking money, but that is not because they could not do so. They simply decided to do another deal with Ellman, and decided to redeploy $12.5M of the funds to that end as well in exchange for more consideration from ellman. They can do so, because their deal with Hulsizer is such that they are going to get their $25M back as well. So, they will replenish the fund with $12.5 M from the Ellman parking escrow money and the rest from the money they are getting back from Hulsizer. Nothing wrong there.


Again, another odd choice, since I was not wrong in that statement. Every decision of the COG was a foregone conclusion by the time it was voted on.

GSC2k2: 05-01-2010, 11:52 AM



A third odd choice. i simply described standard practice. Nothing we have heard or read has contradicted this. CErtainly, the fact that GWI took a hail mary pass right before the bonds were going to market supports my statement above. If it were not going down the road, GWI would not have issued their letter.


Now, if you wanted to identify something on which I was wrong, you should identify the error in assuming that GWI would take the political cover that McCain was providing them. I certainly underestimated their zealotry. THAT would be one to call me out on. The above three? I was right on all of them.

perhaps some context to refresh your memory:

point 1: you argued for pages upon pages that the parking funds had been used to cover the escrow account, contrary to direct statements made by council....when you finally relented that maybe it hadn't, you then claimed it would, but they had simply not gotten around to it yet...you argued that it was all agreed to by ellman and repeatedly pointed to a clause in the agreement as proof of this happening....your argument was that being arena money it was clear of the gift clause.....turns out months later ellman finally does agree to a completely separate deal to split the money with the COG without a cent having anything to do with the escrow account....even your statement above is wrong....they did not use the $12.5m to replenish the enterprise account.....that whole paragraph is actually just made up.

you cant argue that one....go back and read your arguments...you were dead wrong.

point 2: this was a reference that you made regarding the CFD creation for JR....you were arguing at the time of his MOU that it would all fly hunkey dorey because businessmen do not go that far without having it all worked out behind the scenes....we will never know what really killed JR's deal, but the CFD was never even close to having been created and months passed without there even being an attempt.

point 3: you may have been describing what you believe to be standard practice but it is clear that they did not follow that....your 'expectation' was incorrect.


the gist of the last two comments is really to make the point that you assured everyone again and again that JR, IEH and matty would all easily close their deals after the MOU stage because in your belief businessmen dont go that far without working out all the details.....your assertions were obviously incorrect.

 

[peter sullivan]

The point of my comment wasn't about what I believe, the point of my comment was the complete hypocrisy shown by certain Winnipeg fans, that one in particular based on the comment of his that I quoted.

The Winnipeg Free spews complete fabrications on a daily basis, based on "anonymous sources in Glendale" and "lawyers that have once dealt with similar situations but aren't involved in any capacity with the phoenix situation yet give out information as if they were". When that stuff gets posted, it gets treated like gospel by the Winnipeg fans. Let's not forget the brilliant "journalism" by Dave Naylor from TSN, that if a person could show the least amount of impartiality he'd win an award for it, giving his dumb opinion pieces every day based that keep clamouring for a team in Winnipeg based on NOTHING. He's the biggest joke in the world of journalism as far as I'm concerned, yet he's employed by TSN somehow. Again, people repost these opinion pieces and treat them like fact.

But when the same Canadian media states that Colangelo might be getting involved, all of a sudden they are skeptical about what is being said because it's an inconvenience.

That my friend is a perfect example of hypocrisy. Either you are skeptical about everything (which is the position I stand on), but you can't just pick and choose what to believe when it comes to rumors, unless you want to be treated like someone whose opinion is irrelevant.

i think the difference is that the colangelo story was reported by a single source without any detail.....its pretty hard to argue that multiple sources are not reporting the other side...i mean TSN has a jets meter for goodness sake....canada's national newspaper reports almost daily on it....much of the information we are getting is even started from american sources....very little of the real information is coming from winnipeg...the arizona business journal backs up pretty much anything that is claimed...they often start the claims.

if all of a sudden several sources report that colangelo is in, then it will carry more weight....right now you cant really say the 'canadian media' are reporting it.....it was one sentence from one guy in a between periods interview....and he's not even a journalist...he's a former goalie.

what is it exactly that you are skeptical about?.....that the deal in phoenix is stumbling?

 

[CGG]

... because that, and only that, is what is driving this entire issue.

I know that many relocationists like to think it's all about the constitution. That is willful blindless by people who will support anyone and anything that they perceive will benefit their singleminded objective.

I think what you're trying to say on this whole line of reasoning is that the right-wing group that is (allegedly) the only thing holding up the sale to MH is also against public healthcare and once sued a school, therefore Winnipeggers, who live in a province that has often had an NDP government, should denounce what GWI is doing and hope that they never get a hockey team back. Is that correct?

It is perfectly reasonable to support someone's actions while simultaneously disagreeing with their methodology, platform, ideology, whatever you want to call it.

Suppose it was Harrison Ford who was threatening to sue COG, not Goldwater. Should I then not want a hockey team in Winnipeg because the last Indiana Jones movie sucked?

THe fact is that COG only authorized management to proceed with a deal (although a contract was not put forward).

The deal didn't get signed until June 28, 2010. That is not "irrelevant". Let me repeat: no financial institution will accept money as an escrow agent until agreements are signed and in place. They will NEVER do it. It is as simple as that.

"The claims made in this forum and others" are that WPG was "15 mnutes away from getting a team" when the COG averted the team leaving by producing $25M on Friday, May 21, 2010. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since no financial institution will accept money as an escrow agent until documents are signed, the above version could not have happened because the documents were not signed until 6 weeks later.

After saying for years that things are done and agreed to behind closed doors long before they're made public, your only argument here is that Shoalts and the rest of the evil media was wrong because money didn't actually change hands until June 28?

That's pretty weak. When the money actually changed hands is irrelevant. As you said, it takes time to draw up agreements with the escrow agent and various other people, but none of those arrangements would actually be drawn up unless everyone was already in agreement. The COG at the very least convinced the NHL they were going to put up $25 million back in May, and the NHL was satisfied enough with whatever agreement they had back then to go forward with plans for 2010-11 that included a team in Glendale. Whether it was 15 minutes or 15 hours before a deadline, the COG met that deadline in May by agreeing to the NHL's ransom request, and then followed through by coughing up $25 million in June.

Do you honestly think the city only agreed to all this when Scruggy signed the escrow deal on June 28? All the paperwork and legal stuff was drawn up just in case the city agreed to it? Had Scruggy changed her mind on June 28 the team would have been in Winnipeg last year? Nothing is actually a foregone conclusion until the final contract is signed and the money changes hands?

That's like saying COG hasn't agreed to pay MH $100 million for parking rights because they haven't given him the money yet (or even signed the lease).

 

[billy blaze]

Winnipeg's favorite player Eric Belanger in a French language newspaper says 3 weeks to decide whether to renew lease on his rented home in Phoenix or not

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/ho...24/01-4393022-minuit-moins-une-en-arizona.php

«Moi, je me donne trois semaines avant de prendre une décision, d'ajouter Bélanger. On a loué une maison ici, je dois penser aux enfants et à l'école, et il faut que je sache où je m'en vais. Heureusement, je suis dans une bonne position, j'ai connu une bonne saison. Mais je ne peux pas demander un nouveau contrat parce qu'il n'y a pas de propriétaire! Personne ne sait ce qui va se passer.»

translated

"I give myself three weeks before making a decision, adding Belanger. We rented a house here, I must think of the children and school, and I must know where I'm going. Fortunately, I'm in a good position, I had a good season. But I can not ask for a new contract because there is no owner! Nobody knows what will happen. "

 

[DopeyFish]

Considering what happened to him last year with the capitals, I don't blame Belanger for wanting to know lol

 

[GSC2k2*]

This may have been asked and analysed a hundred times already but GWI is presenting the COGs January 25th Amendments to the AMULA agreement as proof that the City of Glendale already owns the parking rights.

I've skimmed through the agreement (albeit quickly), and all it seems to show is that the City of Glendale owns the parking lot / spaces - not the rights to charge for them. Is that right?

If thats the case and we agree that the parking rights are an asset in bankruptcy that will be assumed by the NHL/Hulsizer in the transaction, then it appears that the "grossly disproportionate" test under the Gift Clause comes down to:

1) the value of the parking, adverting and arena put option versus the $100M in bonds (ie. if its deemed to be worth $100M, its not a subsidy. If its deemed to be worth only $70M -- is the additional $30M "grossly disproportionate"?); and

2) the value of the arena management fees and whether they constitue a subsidy (even if they are designed to reimburse arena expenses).

My guess is that the CoG will have a harder time justifying #2, considering that by any measure - $17.5 M/year seems to be way above FMV.

If this is a rehash, I apologize. My main question is about whether the Jan 25th Agreement is a smoking gun for GWI or not.

That is pretty much it, except that regardng the compensation to be justified in #1 above, one would also throw in the $25M in escrow money that MH is returning (despite being under no legal obligation to do so) and the various lease revenue streams. The deal is one transaction, and the jurisprudence requires that you treat everything as one transaction rather than breaking it down into components (that is part of the basic law of consideration in contracts).

In the meeting, GWI attorney Nick Dranius (sp?) cited the Superdome management agreement which supposedly has a $5M fee. I googled that deal, and while I have misplaced the link, sure enough GWI appears to be misrepresenting that dramatically. New Orleans pays a management fee PLUS the deficit run by the arena (which, in the 2000's, was $15-18M per year), plus a bunch of other stuff.

COG in retrospect should have used a different term than "Arena Management Fee" to define these payments, as it is misleading to the public (although as a lawyer I undersand why they did that from a draftsmanship point of view). It inaccurately implies to the public that it is a fixed fee. It also connotes that it is a profit component (much like legal fees, say).

It also creates confusion when comparing it to "fees" of other arena managers; many arena deals are structured like the Superdome deal, whereby the arena manager gets an actual Fee (a payment not based on expenses, but pure profit) on top of getting reimbursed for arena operating expenses, or arena operating deficits, or some similar measure. Those are the types of deals that actual arena operators like Spectacor enter into, as opposed to teams who also manage an arena while also supplying the anchor tenant.

In retrospect, they probably should have used a term like "Arena Expense Reimbursements" or something like that, and punched up the reality of MH not really getting any "fees" in the sense used in other arena management contracts.

 

[mrCoffea*]

i think the difference is that the colangelo story was reported by a single source without any detail.....its pretty hard to argue that multiple sources are not reporting the other side...i mean TSN has a jets meter for goodness sake....canada's national newspaper reports almost daily on it....much of the information we are getting is even started from american sources....very little of the real information is coming from winnipeg...the arizona business journal backs up pretty much anything that is claimed...they often start the claims.

if all of a sudden several sources report that colangelo is in, then it will carry more weight....right now you cant really say the 'canadian media' are reporting it.....it was one sentence from one guy in a between periods interview....and he's not even a journalist...he's a former goalie.

what is it exactly that you are skeptical about?.....that the deal in phoenix is stumbling?

Mod: deleted.

Worse of all is opinion pieces by journalists being used as some form of beacon of truth over here. Just because Mackenzie or Naylor, the most unbiased champions in the universe, say "I think the team will be in Winnipeg next year" doesn't mean jack ****.

You say "well the Colangelo report came from a single source without detail"...well EVERY rumore from the Canadian media comes from a single source without detail and is then reported on by other outlets. It's the exact same thing. Guy X from The Fan says "The deal is dead based on the ghost of hockey's past", then TSN, The Sun, Sportsnet, etc... reports "Guy X states that the deal is done".

 

[King_Stannis]

... because that, and only that, is what is driving this entire issue.

I know that many relocationists like to think it's all about the constitution. That is willful blindless by people who will support anyone and anything that they perceive will benefit their singleminded objective.

Mod: deleted.

But what about those of us who are just as interested in the health of the league as a whole? Some might call you a singleminded advocate of the team staying in Phoenix, despite the fact that the team has been a perpetual money-loser in the past, an absolute nightmare for the league BoG in the present, and has not attracted a single person who thought it was a good enough future investment opportunity to plunk down the asking price with his own money (be that borrowed or in cash).

The Sabres new owner did just that, so we're not talking about something that is out of the ordinary.

 

[TheLegend]

Ya I personally do. Im p-od' with yer elected officials,,,,,.

Unfortunately, Killion..... that route is closed until they can clear all the IEDs hidden along the way.

But it's a path I wouldn't mind ride-sharing with ya.

 

[PitbulI]

But what about those of us who are just as interested in the health of the league as a whole? Some might call you a singleminded advocate of the team staying in Phoenix, despite the fact that the team has been a perpetual money-loser in the past, an absolute nightmare for the league BoG in the present, and has not attracted a single person who thought it was a good enough future investment opportunity to plunk down the asking price with his own money (be that borrowed or in cash).

The Sabres new owner did just that, so we're not talking about something that is out of the ordinary.

Right on. This was a great post. Even I can see the pros and cons to both sides of the Coyotes argument. I respect Goyotes because even he knows there is good and bad to every side of the Coyotes issue. But the posters who have blinders on so bad, I usually skip their posts now.

 

[Dolemite]

Broadcast recently here in town...

 

[aj8000]

Wow, either you are not very good at this debating thing, or you are being wilfully obstinate in refusing to read the facts.

THe fact is that COG only authorized management to proceed with a deal (although a contract was not put forward).

The deal didn't get signed until June 28, 2010. That is not "irrelevant". Let me repeat: no financial institution will accept money as an escrow agent until agreements are signed and in place. They will NEVER do it. It is as simple as that.

"The claims made in this forum and others" are that WPG was "15 minutes away from getting a team" when the COG averted the team leaving by producing $25M on Friday, May 21, 2010. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since no financial institution will accept money as an escrow agent until documents are signed, the above version could not have happened because the documents were not signed until 6 weeks later.

I am not sure if I can explain it any more clearly. Are you still going to pretend that the evidence i have provided actually supports the fairy tale?

Actually, you are missing the forest from the trees again. The COG gave the NHL enough assurances in May regarding the 25 million to save the team for the year. I never claimed the money was transferred, actually, I think the NHL had to push the COG to transfer the funds as well in June. If the COG did not verbally agree the team was gone. The NHL still had time to get the legal agreement in place for the COG to sign. If they did not sign, the yotes were gone. The signing of the agreement and transfer of the money was just the finishing touches.

Your own supplied documentation supports this claim, why are you still arguing with me?

I will give you one point, the claim others had made that the money was transferred in May is incorrect; however, as I stated above, I never said (or meant to insinuate) that the money was transferred before the official agreement was signed.

However, according to the AZ newspaper the money was transferred. (Interpretation error from the article writer)

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...7glendale-phoenix-coyotes-escrow-account.html

However, the bank statements request seems to indicate that it was June (which I agree was the time the money was actually transferred)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/09/22/20100922glendale-phoenix-coyotes-25-million.html

The City Clerk's office on Tuesday, in response to the Republic's questions, produced bank records of the city's $25 million escrow account with Bank of America set aside for Coyotes losses. The documents show no withdrawals were made from June through August. However, the NHL was only allowed to bill the account starting this month. September records were not available.

And to clarify my point, the COG Pledged the money in May. It has been reported that the City had 15 minutes to pledge the money or the team was gone.

The NHL had purchased the team one year ago in bankruptcy court with the hope of re-selling the team last season to a buyer willing to keep the team in Glendale. By May, city officials said the NHL threatened to move the team if Glendale did not set aside the money to cover losses.

The Glendale City Council responded by pledging the $25 million. In return, the NHL gave the city until Dec. 31 to negotiate an arena lease with a potential buyer. City leaders at the time promised to get the $25 million back from a team buyer.

 

[pepty]

Broadcast recently here in town...

He made a lot of solid points.

GWI is an unelected group with their own agenda.

 

[Free Edler]

He made a lot of solid points.

GWI is an unelected group with their own agenda.

Every political group has an agenda.

 

[Pinchy]

Broadcast recently here in town...

Transparency is great, but the issue still lies in the fact that the CoG is giving a private individual $100,000,000 to buy a hockey team. They are saying that they are purchasing parking rights, which they may already own.

And if the parking rights are so lucrative...why has no one charged for them before?

I have no problem with the Coyotes staying in Phoenix...but if they can't find a buyer who is willing to BUY the team and shoulder the risk, then how can they be surprised when people are concerned that taxpayers are on the hook for all of the risk?

 

[Gump Hasek]

Worse of all is opinion pieces by journalists being used as some form of beacon of truth over here. Just because Mackenzie or Naylor, the most unbiased champions in the universe, say "I think the team will be in Winnipeg next year" doesn't mean jack ****.

You say "well the Colangelo report came from a single source without detail"...well EVERY rumore from the Canadian media comes from a single source without detail and is then reported on by other outlets. It's the exact same thing. Guy X from The Fan says "The deal is dead based on the ghost of hockey's past", then TSN, The Sun, Sportsnet, etc... reports "Guy X states that the deal is done".

This theory is one based upon a great deal of assumption. First of all, your usage of the term "Canadian media" to tar and feather all journalists in the country amounts to a pure straw man tactic. The "Canadian media" as you describe it does not exist; they do not all work for the same employer, nor do they all read from the same script.

If you find the message delivered by certain segments of media to be so disturbing though, you could always read or watch something else. Perhaps the reason that problems in Phoenix receive a higher level of examination in Canada than elsewhere is because the interest in hockey matters is much higher here as well? Maybe you find the reports that Phoenix is in trouble to be so disturbing because you support the franchise and as such may be in a bit of denial, or perhaps you find the reporting of this to be hurtful to your fragile psyche?

It is most amusing that you find opinion pieces to be so distasteful. Are we to now outlaw the expression of opinions that run counter to your own?

 

[Fugu]

Worse of all is opinion pieces by journalists being used as some form of beacon of truth over here. Just because Mackenzie or Naylor, the most unbiased champions in the universe, say "I think the team will be in Winnipeg next year" doesn't mean jack ****.

You say "well the Colangelo report came from a single source without detail"...well EVERY rumore from the Canadian media comes from a single source without detail and is then reported on by other outlets. It's the exact same thing. Guy X from The Fan says "The deal is dead based on the ghost of hockey's past", then TSN, The Sun, Sportsnet, etc... reports "Guy X states that the deal is done".

Maybe you're the one who needs to read some Arizona papers?

This is one of the most recent AZCentral reports:

So guess what?
Barring a last-minute deal, Glendale looks as if it may be stuck with an empty arena and mountain of debt, doesn't get the $50 million from Balsillie, doesn't get a lease agreement of any kind and Valley hockey fans still lose their team.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coy...coyotes-bleak-off-ice-saga.html#ixzz1KXykqxI0
​

 

[Killion]

As I said, if Colangelo is indeed back in the fold in some capacity, my guess is it's in his role with the ACA.

So hypothetically, Colangelo could be lobbying Goldwater on behalf of the COG with one hand (ACA) washing the other (Coyotes) pursuant to the school voucher issue. A trade-off. That, combined with some redactions to the agreement just might fly.

 

[davemac1313]

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2011/04/nhl-presses-on-for-coyotes-financing.html

"Bettman also met with former Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo this week, according to sources familiar with the situation. It was not clear whether that meeting was meant to gauge Colangelo's interest in the team or to solicit his input about the sale."

 

[Fugu]

Every political group has an agenda.

Nah, now you're being naive, KJP.


So to reiterate, the point isn't that GWI is conservative think tank with their own mission, as clearly they have a self-determined mission, the point is that they have found a weapon to use against Glendale's attempt to subsidize the Coyote's ownership. It's called the Arizona Constitution. That has always been the issue.

 

[Fugu]

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2011/04/nhl-presses-on-for-coyotes-financing.html

"Bettman also met with former Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo this week, according to sources familiar with the situation. It was not clear whether that meeting was meant to gauge Colangelo's interest in the team or to solicit his input about the sale."

Also from that article so we can reference it (and I'll move these posts to the new thread):

Bettman and the NHL aggressively are putting together a new financing deal to allow Chicago investment executive Matthew Hulsizer to purchase the Coyotes and keep the team in Glendale.
The NHL push for a new money plan comes with Hulsizer standing pat on his offer to buy the team and Glendale’s existing bond plan hamstrung by the Goldwater Institute’s opposition.
A new financing plan likely will replace the $197 million bond and arena management deal the city of Glendale put together to help Hulsizer buy the Coyotes.

Read more: NHL presses on for Coyotes financing | Phoenix Business Journal

 

[seanlinden]

Transparency is great, but the issue still lies in the fact that the CoG is giving a private individual $100,000,000 to buy a hockey team. They are saying that they are purchasing parking rights, which they may already own.

And if the parking rights are so lucrative...why has no one charged for them before?

I have no problem with the Coyotes staying in Phoenix...but if they can't find a buyer who is willing to BUY the team and shoulder the risk, then how can they be surprised when people are concerned that taxpayers are on the hook for all of the risk?

No, the fact is that the City of Glendale is giving a private individual $100m to sign a non-relocation lease in Glendale. Some of the people here are having trouble facing some very difficult facts -- Phoenix does not have a team for next year at this point in time. If they want a major league tennant drawing 12,000+ to their arena 41+ times a year, it's going to cost them $100m. It's no different than subsidies or tax breaks provided to any business for locating in a city / area.

That news anchor is absolutely right. It's not taxpayers concerned about this, it's a rogue 3rd party of lawyers picking committing tortious interference. The last thing that Goldwater should be doing is suing, all it's doing is costing the city more money and potentially their team. If Goldwater wants to debate the wisdom of this deal (i.e. they'd be better off without a team), the time for that was in december where it was put infront of city council. Otherwise, alll they are within their rights to do is exercise democratic dissent and pursue impeachment if they truly do represent the citizens of glendale.

 

[Fugu]

We can pick this up in the new thread:


http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=907531