Phoenix XXXIX: You Never Give Me Your Money

[RR]

Of course that's what it is, just like the previous buyers were serious and there were heavy negotiations going on in private. It couldn't possibly be that the parties involved (COG and Beasley I'm looking in your direction) are incompetent twits that wouldn't know how to sell ice in the desert (pun intended). We all know where the assumptions of private negotiations got everyone in the past and it got the COG another $25 million bill to pay. It's up to the Coyotes, the COG, the NHL, Jamison, Reinsdorf, etc. to show that this actually has a chance of succeeding. I'm not saying they have to negotiate in public but letting people know that there is a serious ownership candidate would at least show that there's some type of forward movement...

Why would you believe that? And from whom would that report have to come from for you to believe it?

People who believe that a sale is imminent are quick to dismiss what's happened in the past, but in every instance involving a potential owner for this team, history has ended up repeating itself and the deal has collapsed after long periods of silence. During those periods we were all told "the negotiations will not happen in a newspaper" and "they're likely putting the finishing touches on a deal as we speak" among other platitudes, but in reality the silence was because a deal was dead. Until that cycle is broken or there is news suggesting that there is something nearly finalized, it's logical for people to reach the conclusion that there is little going on when that is what has ultimately happened in every previous case of an ownership group stepping forward.

Which is exactly why they may be negotiating this in a completely different manner.

 

[CasualFan]

One would suspect they're lurking in the tall weeds, Killi.

Which brings up a question... would the current GWI v Glendale court sparring be relevant given that the main party involved (Hulsizer) is no longer part of the picture?

Unless Jamison and/or Kaites' (nee JR's) deals include significant items that were also in the Hulsizer deal I would think GWI would have to come up with a new angle they don't like..

Hello, Good Afternoon,

The civil litigation between Goldwater Institute and the City of Glendale is not predicated on a specific entity, such as Hulsizer. The complaint was for Statutory Special Action where Goldwater compels Glendale via the Superior Court to release records that the city had withheld.

The court ruled that the City had to make available to the Institute all records of negotiation with potential new owner(s) of the Coyotes. However, the City maintains "in camera" review rights, where the City presents the documents to the Court and argues that releasing of the records would compromise their ability to negotiate with potential owner(s). That ruling actually occurred on July 21, 2009. Since then Glendale has produced 11 sets of documents for "in camera" review by the court. Majority of the time the Court has agreed with the City and the documents have been exempted from disclosure.

Separately, but still as part of the same civil case, Goldwater decided to really turn the screws in July 2011 when they filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions as part of a Civil Contempt action against City Attorney Craig "just play with her or ignore her" Tindall. As a result, the Institute was allowed to depose Glendale city staff. After the depositions were completed, Goldwater subpoenaed additional records. Glendale, naturally, objected to the subpoena. The City's objection was filed on Sep 28, 2011. We patiently await a ruling by the New Special Master assigned to the case.

The civil litigation impacts the sale of the franchise in several ways. Most notably, any public-private partnership is going to be vetted immediately by Goldwater. It wont matter what form the subsidy takes, Glendale (and more importantly Bettman and the NHL) are keenly aware that a challenge will be looming. In a world where professional sports profit is largely built on public subsidies, that makes Glendale an extremely unattractive market. To wit, every published MOU for the team has contemplated large amounts of public investment; no sale has been consummated due to challenge of that public investment.

Sadly for the Coyotes, the situation looks exactly as untenable as it was when I first posted on this forum. The NHL will have a difficult time attracting an owner without a subsidy. Glendale will have a difficult time providing a subsidy without a lawsuit.


** Edit **

As for "serious negotiations", we will all know exactly when negotiations turn serious because the records will be produced via ongoing injunction. FYI: Aug 15, 2011 was the last time Glendale produced negotiation documents to the Court.

 

[TheLegend]

Of course that's what it is, just like the previous buyers were serious and there were heavy negotiations going on in private.

Previous buyers had more peep holes looking in on them than you find in most adult arcades.

It couldn't possibly be that the parties involved (COG and Beasley I'm looking in your direction) are incompetent twits that wouldn't know how to sell ice in the desert (pun intended). We all know where the assumptions of private negotiations got everyone in the past and it got the COG another $25 million bill to pay. It's up to the Coyotes, the COG, the NHL, Jamison, Reinsdorf, etc. to show that this actually has a chance of succeeding. I'm not saying they have to negotiate in public but letting people know that there is a serious ownership candidate would at least show that there's some type of forward movement.

Agree with you on the group I now refer to as The Beasley Bunch.

However I have to ask.... how do you propose the potential buyers show that they're serious? Roll up in an armored vehicle loaded with cash? Large transactions like these are never done in the public.

People who believe that a sale is imminent are quick to dismiss what's happened in the past, but in every instance involving a potential owner for this team, history has ended up repeating itself and the deal has collapsed after long periods of silence. During those periods we were all told "the negotiations will not happen in a newspaper" and "they're likely putting the finishing touches on a deal as we speak" among other platitudes, but in reality the silence was because a deal was dead. Until that cycle is broken or there is news suggesting that there is something nearly finalized, it's logical for people to reach the conclusion that there is little going on when that is what has ultimately happened in every previous case of an ownership group stepping forward.

Except in previous cases... neither IEH, JR or Hulsizer ever stated they weren't going to negotiate in the paper. IEH commented once about "the heavy lifting has been done", and Hulsizer once made it "brain dead simple" for the GWI (typos included ). Everything else has been speculation made up by posters on internet sites and the media.

 

[ATHF]

Why would you believe that? And from whom would that report have to come from for you to believe it?



Which is exactly why they may be negotiating this in a completely different manner.

A report from any source stating that Jamison or Reinsdorf are in the final stages of negotiating would be all that was needed. No details about what they're negotiating for, just the fact that someone is actually close to making a deal rather than just kicking tires. And no, twitter posts from a couple of radio guys don't really pass muster.

As for them negotiating in a different manner this time around, do you believe that this period of inactivity in the press is being mirrored by some flurry of negotiating activity behind the scenes? I'm not suggesting that Phoenix can't be sold, I'm just wondering why this silence is so much different from the previous silences that ended up with buyers being proven to be shams or proven to need too much help from the COG.

 

[cbcwpg]

Which is exactly why they may be negotiating this in a completely different manner.

It would be nice to assume that negotiations are ongoing and working towards an end, and being done privately... but given past history it is just as easy to assume negotiations have broken down and nothing is going to be said until next April. This can go either way. None of us know, so we assume.

The only thing that I find interesting about the silence is that every trick in the book to sell the Coyotes and get a lease signed has been attempted by the past participants, and they were all shot down. So at this point, what really is left to negotiate? Price and lease terms. And how long should that take if that's all you are talking about? The price is between the NHL and the buyer ( not the CoG ), and I'm sure by now they have come to a number both sides like. The only reason for this dragging on for another couple of months would be the CoG's continued insistance on a very long term lease.

 

[Killion]

Sadly for the Coyotes, the situation looks exactly as untenable as it was when I first posted on this forum. The NHL will have a difficult time attracting an owner without a subsidy. Glendale will have a difficult time providing a subsidy without a lawsuit.

Thanks for the update CF. Quick hypothetical question; Is it not possible for the NHL to simply consummate a deal with JR/GJ & either assign the agreement the league signed with Glendale back in May to either one of those 2 parties and or simply have them operate under its umbrella as de-facto owners?. I would assume the Arena Management Fee would be a sticky wicket, needing to be re-negotiated perhaps, however, it would provide the team with ownership and allow Kaites or Jamison some luxury in time with respect to negotiating a full blown AMULA with the COG, the leverage pretty heavy mind you, but still, is that just not legally viable or what?.

 

[CasualFan]

Thanks for the update CF. Quick hypothetical question; Is it not possible for the NHL to simply consummate a deal with JR/GJ & either assign the agreement the league signed with Glendale back in May to either one of those 2 parties and or simply have them operate under its umbrella as de-facto owners?. I would assume the Arena Management Fee would be a sticky wicket, needing to be re-negotiated perhaps, however, it would provide the team with ownership and allow Kaites or Jamison some luxury in time with respect to negotiating a full blown AMULA with the COG, the leverage pretty heavy mind you, but still, is that just not legally viable or what?.

Certainly. The NHL absolutely has authority to complete your hypothetical. The NHL has sole/exclusive right to transfer/extend the current "AMUL" (which, going all the way back to the beginning of the saga, is actually different terms than the Moyes "AMULA")

What they don't have is a guarantee of $25MM per year in "Arena Management Fee". JR/GJ/etc would have to be very cautious about purchasing a distressed asset without guaranteed public funding. In fact, they would be insane to buy the team first and then try to negotiate a new lease with a large subsidy.

 

[RR]

A report from any source stating that Jamison or Reinsdorf are in the final stages of negotiating would be all that was needed. No details about what they're negotiating for, just the fact that someone is actually close to making a deal rather than just kicking tires. And no, twitter posts from a couple of radio guys don't really pass muster.

If a report came out today from Dreger, saying "Sources tell me NHL finalizing sale details to keep Coyotes in Phoenix," you'd believe it. I just don't get why, based on history you specifically mentioned, you'd believe it. I certainly wouldn't have any faith in it.

As for them negotiating in a different manner this time around, do you believe that this period of inactivity in the press is being mirrored by some flurry of negotiating activity behind the scenes? I'm not suggesting that Phoenix can't be sold, I'm just wondering why this silence is so much different from the previous silences that ended up with buyers being proven to be shams or proven to need too much help from the COG.

Again, because MAYBE a different sales negotiation tactic is being used this time because all the previous deals fell apart.

I'm not saying it is going on, or that I believe it is going on.

I've pretty much tuned everything out because I'm sick of the 2-plus years of speculation, rumors, innuendo, and bad blood it's created in so many circles. When a new owner officially takes over, I'll tune back in.

Until then, it's all the same-old-same-old to me, and I'm not sure why anyone would believe anything that was reported until the keys are handed to a new owner in Phoenix.

 

[Killion]

Certainly. The NHL absolutely has authority to complete your hypothetical. The NHL has sole/exclusive right to transfer/extend the current "AMUL" (which, going all the way back to the beginning of the saga, is actually different terms than the Moyes "AMULA")

What they don't have is a guarantee of $25MM per year in "Arena Management Fee". JR/GJ/etc would have to be very cautious about purchasing a distressed asset without guaranteed public funding. In fact, they would be insane to buy the team first and then try to negotiate a new lease with a large subsidy.

Agreed. Yet if they were to receive assurances from the COG that the Arena Mgmnt Fee would in fact be continued whilst they tried to formulate a new AMULA and they received assurances from the Attorneys' that it was kosher, perhaps even a more moderate fee of lets say $15-20M or whatever, then why not proceed?. I cant imagine after whats transpired theyd want to try & float any kind of seriously complex or long-term subsidy arrangement, in fact they really cant at this time what with Westgate being up in the air etc.... But if the league provides terms and a discount, they are able to move it themselves or sell for relo if the negotiations breakdown and or they are unable to effect a turnaround post a new AMULA with an out clause, it doesnt seem to me their should be much of a holdup in putting this thing to bed. Admittedly, its a lot of speculation & assumption on my part, but based on historical precedents and being a student of how this league operates it would seem the most logical, expeditious path & remedy no?...

 

[CasualFan]

Agreed. Yet if they were to receive assurances from the COG that the Arena Mgmnt Fee would in fact be continued whilst they tried to formulate a new AMULA and they received assurances from the Attorneys' that it was kosher, perhaps even a more moderate fee of lets say $15-20M or whatever, then why not proceed?. I cant imagine after whats transpired theyd want to try & float any kind of seriously complex or long-term subsidy arrangement, in fact they really cant at this time what with Westgate being up in the air etc.... But if the league provides terms and a discount, they are able to move it themselves or sell for relo if the negotiations breakdown and or they are unable to effect a turnaround post a new AMULA with an out clause, it doesnt seem to me their should be much of a holdup in putting this thing to bed. Admittedly, its a lot of speculation & assumption on my part, but based on historical precedents and being a student of how this league operates it would seem the most logical, expeditious path & remedy no?...

A little heavy on the "if" "however" and "potentially". If you will allow me to playfully impersonate an old friend from around these parts:

These types of deals have all the I's dotted and T's crossed! I've closed countless million dollar deals. I know it all. I've seen it all.

 

[goyotes]

I'm out of the prediction business; especially when it comes to the sale of the Coyotes.

Truth is, no one knows if meaningful negotiations are taking place. And, CF, I think you paint with two wide a brush the implications of the Gift Clause on the AMULA. Bonds going to underwrite the purchase price of the team is one thing, paying a fee to retain an ownership group to run and operate the arena is a much tougher sell as a GC violation.

Of this I know when it comes to this three ring circus...I know nothing.

 

[CasualFan]

I'm out of the prediction business; especially when it comes to the sale of the Coyotes.

Truth is, no one knows if meaningful negotiations are taking place. And, CF, I think you paint with two wide a brush the implications of the Gift Clause on the AMULA. Bonds going to underwrite the purchase price of the team is one thing, paying a fee to retain an ownership group to run and operate the arena is a much tougher sell as a GC violation.

Of this I know when it comes to this three ring circus...I know nothing.

I didn't mean to position myself as a judge or jury ruling on violations of the Gift Clause. I offer only that the saber of litigation is a powerful weapon. To date, it has served Goldwater well.

 

[Killion]

I didn't mean to position myself as a judge or jury ruling on violations of the Gift Clause. I offer only that the Sabre of litigation is a powerful weapon. To date, it has served Goldwater well.

No inference taken that way on this end and I appreciate the edification based on experience & observation... yet it still niggles, the NHL having every right to transfer the AMUL leaving the backdoor wide open to relo. In this particularly unusual case that some of the t's may not be crossed, left _______ for another day doesnt surprise me, as I too have been involved in some rather large sports & entertainment (marketing primarily) transactions & have seen/used clauses that are deliberately left open/generic as any given situation may require for a variety of reasons. In this case, secondary contingency plans between the league & the buyer dotted & X'd. The COG pretty much removed from the process, thus neutering the GWI as Glendale will have provided nothing whatsoever beyond an Arena Management Fee. If thats challenged, then surely the COG, Jamison or Reinsdorf along with the league would have a pretty strong argument to shutdown GW's complaints no?. They didnt challenge it last year nor this, precedents have been set.... All that being said, with a Municipal Election coming up next year, what happens if Scruggs either doesnt run or loses?. Maybe the incoming Mayor just lays down the sword & says enough. A lot of unknowns & variables.

 

[CasualFan]

No inference taken that way on this end and I appreciate the edification based on experience & observation... yet it still niggles, the NHL having every right to transfer the AMUL leaving the backdoor wide open to relo. In this particularly unusual case that some of the t's may not be crossed, left _______ for another day doesnt surprise me, as I too have been involved in some rather large sports & entertainment (marketing primarily) transactions & have seen/used clauses that are deliberately left open/generic as any given situation may require for a variety of reasons. In this case, secondary contingency plans between the league & the buyer dotted & X'd. The COG pretty much removed from the process, thus neutering the GWI as Glendale will have provided nothing whatsoever beyond an Arena Management Fee. If thats challenged, then surely the COG, Jamison or Reinsdorf along with the league would have a pretty strong argument to shutdown GW's complaints no?. They didnt challenge it last year nor this, precedents have been set.... All that being said, with a Municipal Election coming up next year, what happens if Scruggs either doesnt run or loses?. Maybe the incoming Mayor just lays down the sword & says enough. A lot of unknowns & variables.

That's the rub. Goldwater v. Glendale is not just about preventing subsidies to new owner(s). It's also very much about accessing records, deposing city staff, etc that would potentially enable litigation over the $50MM that COG already spent.

 

[goyotes]

That's the rub. Goldwater v. Glendale is not just about preventing subsidies to new owner(s). It's also very much about accessing records, deposing city staff, etc that would potentially enable litigation over the $50MM that COG already spent.

Agreed. No doubt the GWI could still have an impact on the outcome of this transaction. I have under-estimated them once too often to do so again. But I think the NHL, the CoG and any potential owner has to know the GWI will not just go away at this point. Every transaction has risks. The question is whether an AMULA with some payment to an operator violates the Turken test under City North. One would think the NHL has made its bed on whether to move the sale forward in Phoenix with a given that any ownership group is going to ask to be compensated to operate the arena. And to be clear, the $25M included imposition of the operational costs upon the arena operator. If the costs were removed as part of the deal, your taking now about closer to $5 - 7 million (if the CoG's cost estimates can be believed).

Who knows what a court would do with the question of whether this violates the Turken test, but this seems to be exactly the type of business decisions the City North court didn't want to open up for review on a case-by-case basis at the whim of the GWI or any other protesting group.

 

[kihekah19*]

It would be nice to assume that negotiations are ongoing and working towards an end, and being done privately... but given past history it is just as easy to assume negotiations have broken down and nothing is going to be said until next April. This can go either way. None of us know, so we assume.

The only thing that I find interesting about the silence is that every trick in the book to sell the Coyotes and get a lease signed has been attempted by the past participants, and they were all shot down. So at this point, what really is left to negotiate? Price and lease terms. And how long should that take if that's all you are talking about? The price is between the NHL and the buyer ( not the CoG ), and I'm sure by now they have come to a number both sides like. The only reason for this dragging on for another couple of months would be the CoG's continued insistance on a very long term lease.

I think the CoG has every right to insist on a long term lease. Why wouldn't / shouldn't they? It is what they had before, when they stepped up to the plate and took on building an arena to house this NHL franchise.... it's also perhaps the main thing that has kept the team in Arizona.

 

[Whileee]

CoG says it is up to the NHL to find an owner, NHL says they are "vetting the process", two groups have reported put in bids to the NHL (at least when identified they and the NHL have not denied that report), and yet no deal or certain timeline for a deal.

So, who is actually in charge of negotiations? This is a three-ring circus. The NHL will not approve an owner without the CoG agreeing to a lease. And, the CoG is saying they can't do a lease with a tenant unless and until they own the team. Meanwhile, potential ownership groups fall in and out of the picture. Could it be anymore screwed up?

You wouldn't think it wouldn't be that difficult to get some answers but no one has asked the right question directly since Winnipeg got the Thrashers. How about asking Bettman whether the NHL has received an offer to buy the Coyotes? Don't even have to ask the question over price; just whether someone has made the NHL an offer as has been reported (at least in Phoenix). This is the classic three monkeys...hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.

Agreed. Yet if they were to receive assurances from the COG that the Arena Mgmnt Fee would in fact be continued whilst they tried to formulate a new AMULA and they received assurances from the Attorneys' that it was kosher, perhaps even a more moderate fee of lets say $15-20M or whatever, then why not proceed?. I cant imagine after whats transpired theyd want to try & float any kind of seriously complex or long-term subsidy arrangement, in fact they really cant at this time what with Westgate being up in the air etc.... But if the league provides terms and a discount, they are able to move it themselves or sell for relo if the negotiations breakdown and or they are unable to effect a turnaround post a new AMULA with an out clause, it doesnt seem to me their should be much of a holdup in putting this thing to bed. Admittedly, its a lot of speculation & assumption on my part, but based on historical precedents and being a student of how this league operates it would seem the most logical, expeditious path & remedy no?...

Based on CF's analysis, I suppose the problem with a new owner just assuming the current agreement with the $25 million subsidy is whether that subsidy might be under legal threat. It seems quite clear that the GWI has not just "gone away" now that Hulsizer has left the building, but rather that they have turned their attention to a different and broader set of legal issues. As CF noted, if the current legal proceedings don't result in sufficient latitude for the COG to provide subsidies, then it could have quite a chilling effect on negotiations with prospective owners.

 

[Whileee]

No inference taken that way on this end and I appreciate the edification based on experience & observation... yet it still niggles, the NHL having every right to transfer the AMUL leaving the backdoor wide open to relo. In this particularly unusual case that some of the t's may not be crossed, left _______ for another day doesnt surprise me, as I too have been involved in some rather large sports & entertainment (marketing primarily) transactions & have seen/used clauses that are deliberately left open/generic as any given situation may require for a variety of reasons. In this case, secondary contingency plans between the league & the buyer dotted & X'd. The COG pretty much removed from the process, thus neutering the GWI as Glendale will have provided nothing whatsoever beyond an Arena Management Fee. If thats challenged, then surely the COG, Jamison or Reinsdorf along with the league would have a pretty strong argument to shutdown GW's complaints no?. They didnt challenge it last year nor this, precedents have been set.... All that being said, with a Municipal Election coming up next year, what happens if Scruggs either doesnt run or loses?. Maybe the incoming Mayor just lays down the sword & says enough. A lot of unknowns & variables.

On one hand, selling the team with the very real threat of a relocation might actually work in Glendale's favour. If not permitted to provide the $25 million subsidy the team is gone. Presumably, that has been the political calculation for the past two years, and it seems to have worked for the City of Glendale.

However, the political and legal ramifications become a bit more dicey if this subsidy is extended ad infinitum without the expectation or assurance of a long-term deal being consummated. As I have noted before, I think it would be politically very difficult to support an ongoing subsidy of that magnitude without the public expectation that it is "saving" the Coyotes. If it is just ends up delaying relocation by a few more years, citizens might rightly ask whether putting $100+ million into the pockets of a businessman who then whisked the team to another city was the best use of public money.

 

[Whileee]

I think the CoG has every right to insist on a long term lease. Why wouldn't / shouldn't they? It is what they had before, when they stepped up to the plate and took on building an arena to house this NHL franchise.... it's also perhaps the main thing that has kept the team in Arizona.

The peril for the COG just now is that they don't have a long-term lease, and the NHL is now in a position to get off the hook by selling the team to another owner who would have no obligation to keep the team in Glendale. The calculus remains the same vis-a-vis a long-term lease. If Glendale wants to insist on it, then the new owners will insist that Glendale assume long-term financial risk. In this climate, paying $170 for a franchise in a weakened market and being forced to stay there long term is not an attractive prospect.

 

[Killion]

That's the rub. Goldwater v. Glendale is not just about preventing subsidies to new owner(s). It's also very much about accessing records, deposing city staff, etc that would potentially enable litigation over the $50MM that COG already spent.

It seems quite clear that the GWI has not just "gone away" now that Hulsizer has left the building, but rather that they have turned their attention to a different and broader set of legal issues.

Ya, thats certainly "the rub". Goldwater appears to be litigating this case in such a manner as to increases its scope likely after every in-camera revelation that could reach far beyond that which was initially contemplated in dealing with the primary dispositive issues pursuant to the Hulsizer Proxy... Id really like to see them try & challenge the COG over the Arena Management Fee. I dont think I'll ever grow tired of seeing Clint Bolick getting Bodyslammed by the likes of the City of Phoenix & Judge Miles in Arizona Superior Court; and better yet repeatedly through the Appeals Courts. Its wonderful sport. Makes me happy.

 

[Whileee]

Ya, thats certainly "the rub". Goldwater appears to be litigating this case in such a manner as to increases its scope likely after every in-camera revelation that could reach far beyond that which was initially contemplated in dealing with the primary dispositive issues pursuant to the Hulsizer Proxy... Id really like to see them try & challenge the COG over the Arena Management Fee. I dont think I'll ever grow tired of seeing Clint Bolick getting Bodyslammed by the likes of the City of Phoenix & Judge Miles in Arizona Superior Court; and better yet repeatedly through the Appeals Courts. Its wonderful sport. Makes me happy.

It seems that the COG hasn't been keen to see this litigated. Otherwise, we should have seen them take on the GWI over the Hulsizer deal, I would have thought. Perhaps there are some rather unpleasant tidbits that remain to be unearthed as the GWI digs through the detritus of previous negotiations and deal-making.

 

[Mungman]

Based on CF's analysis, I suppose the problem with a new owner just assuming the current agreement with the $25 million subsidy is whether that subsidy might be under legal threat. It seems quite clear that the GWI has not just "gone away" now that Hulsizer has left the building, but rather that they have turned their attention to a different and broader set of legal issues. As CF noted, if the current legal proceedings don't result in sufficient latitude for the COG to provide subsidies, then it could have quite a chilling effect on negotiations with prospective owners.

My understanding (that I understand is not shared by many here) is that the 25MM subsidy is a year by year deal separate from the lease. The lease is renewable at the leagues discretion but the cash is separate.

 

[Killion]

Perhaps there are some rather unpleasant tidbits that remain to be unearthed as the GWI digs through the detritus of previous negotiations and deal-making.

No doubt there is. Certainly Tindall, Beasley & Scuggs have worked very hard to earn the enmity of Coyotes fans. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, however, I dont want to see a situation arise that stalls & stops the sale process to Reinsdorf
or Jamison. Plenty of time to hold Crucifixion & Necktie Parties at City Hall after a deals done & the team stays put.

 

[BAdvocate]

They should go back to Balsillie and beg him to buy the team......


BWAAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA.


What a loser.

 

[CasualFan]

My understanding (that I understand is not shared by many here) is that the 25MM subsidy is a year by year deal separate from the lease. The lease is renewable at the leagues discretion but the cash is separate.

Your understanding is absolutely correct. It's all public record so not sure how there can be any doubt:
- The subsidy is year to year; capped at $25MM; approved by vote of the Glendale City Council.
- The lease is an executed agreement which contains a provision that allows extension or transfer at the sole discretion of the NHL.