Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Fugu, Apr 24, 2011.
...and Grooving with GWI.
Hat tip to kdb.
Broadcast recently here in town...
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)
However, the bank statements request seems to indicate that it was June (which I agree was the time the money was actually transferred)
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.
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?
Maybe you're the one who needs to read some Arizona papers?
This is one of the most recent AZCentral reports:
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coy...coyotes-bleak-off-ice-saga.html#ixzz1KXykqxI0
"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):
Read more: NHL presses on for Coyotes financing | Phoenix Business Journal
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.
Yes, anyone is within their rights to sue if they feel they have been wronged. However, what entities do not have the right to do is intefere with business transactions in order to make deals cost one (or both) side(s) more. It puts them liable for the additional cost to the deal.
On the bright side if this occurs, it can serve as a warning stopping more cities from subsidizing sports teams and their arenas/stadiums.
When businesses receive subsidies or tax breaks, it's usually because it'd bring a lot of jobs to the area and the tax revenues and consumer spending from those people's jobs will more than offset the value of the tax break. The Phoenix Coyotes by themselves as a company don't have enough in the way of jobs to have much of an effect on area commerce and tax receipts (nowhere near justifiable for $100 million anyway), and the effects of a sports team on area businesses and commerce is a controversial subject, as whether it is beneficial or whether there is little to no effect at all is dependent on who is paying the economist.
Several Species of Small Fury Creatures Gathered Together in a Cave.
I once had a similar vision, standing on the shores of Lake Louise. All the woodland species came down to greet me..... I was Higher than a Kite at the time of course. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.... As performed by William Shatner.
The way this is going you can almost bank on the Yotes playing in Phoenix next year.
What do you mean Phoenix does not have a team for next year? I haven't heard of a confirmation of the Coyotes leaving Glendale or the Phoenix area yet. You have some sort of insider info?
You're missing the part where Goldwater thinks that the deal violates the constitution and is therefore against the law. Whether they are correct about that obviously sparks a lot of debate, but to suggest that municipalities can do whatever the hell they want, even if it violates the law, just because their city council narrowly voted in favour of doing it, is a bit of a stretch.
Same dumbass thinking by the people that want to ignore the law is what led us to bailing out all these banks...
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another thread here for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me
What do you get from a glut of these threads?
Eyes that glaze over and a pain in the head
Why don't you stop and end all this pain?
Or could you just read and go slowly insane?
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not crazy then you will run far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do
There's no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going.
There's no knowing where we're rowing
Or which way the river's flowing.
Is it raining?
Is it snowing?
Is a hurricane a blowing?
Not a speck of light is showing
so the danger must be growing.
Are the fires of hell a glowing?
Is the grisly reaper mowing?
Yes! The danger must be growing
For the rowers keep on rowing.
And they're certainly not showing
any signs that they are slowing!
12-08-2008 Hockey in The Desert (Phoenix franchise and finance/business matters)
02-04-2009 Hockey in the Desert II (Phoenix Coyotes franchise and business matters)
05-05-2009 Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
05-07-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part II
05-18-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part III
05-22-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
06-03-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part V
06-09-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VI
06-12-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VII: I'm just waitin' on a judge
06-16-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VIII: It's dead, Jim
06-24-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey
07-25-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part X: The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!
08-03-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XI: A Fistful of Dollars?
08-07-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XII: For a Few Dollars More
08-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIII: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
08-21-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIV: The Wrath of Baum
08-27-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XV - SITREP: SNAFU
09-02-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVI: Barbarian at the Gate
09-08-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVII: Wake Me Up When September Ends
09-10-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVIII: Is that a pale horse in the distance?
09-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum
09-21-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum
09-28-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXI: 2009 -- A Sports Odyssey
10-26-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXII: Long and winding road
11-24-2009 Keeping up with potential owners for NHL Phoenix Coyotes (UPD: Ice Edge signs LOI)
03-14-2010 Part II. Potential owners of NHL's Phoenix Coyotes
03-26-2010 Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)
04-10-2010 Part IV Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy; UPD COG approves Reinsdorf MOU, not IEH MOU
05-02-2010 Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?
05-11-2010 Part VI Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy
05-23-2010 Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-22-2010 Part IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input
07-26-2010 Part X: Phoenix Coyotes - Between Scylla and Charybdis
08-27-2010 Part XI: Phoenix Coyotes -- Greetings, Starfighter, You have been selected ...
09-16-2010 Part XII: Phx Coyotes - Still haven't found what I'm looking for
10-12-2010 Part XIII: Phoenix Coyotes - The Final Cut?
10-27-2010 Part XIV: Phoenix Coyotes - To Infinity And Beyond....
12-05-2010 Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore
12-14-2010 Part XVI: Phoenix -- Money for Nothing
12-20-2010 Part XVII: Phoenix -- Thread Title Available For Lease
01-09-2011 Part XVIII: Phoenix -- Imminence Front
01-24-2011 Phoenix XIXth: Nervous Breakdown
02-02-2011 Phoenix XX: Two weeks
02-11-2011 Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?
02-22-2011 Phoenix XXII: It's Now or Never
02-28-2011 Phoenix XXIII - Bond: The Phoenix Project
03-03-2011 Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?
03-07-2011 Phoenix XXV: Anyone in the theatre seen a pale horse?
03-08-2011 Phoenix XXVI: Pain in the AZ
03-11-2011 Phoenix XXVII: Can we all get along?
03-16-2011 Phoenix XXVIII: Lawyers, Bonds and Money
03-20-2011 Phoenix XXIX: What's the next act? I'm tired of the dog & pony show
03-22-2011 Phoenix Part XXX Hulz, you gotta get a gimmick if you want to get ahead
03-27-2011 Phoenix Part XXXI: I feel I'm in a time loop
04-05-2011 Phoenix Part XXXII: Bridge over Troubled Goldwater
04-14-2011 Phoenix XXXIII: Sound of Silence
04-20-2011 Phoenix XXXIV: Project Mayhem
04-25-2011 Phoenix XXXV: Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave...
And the Blackberries taste like blackberries.
I spent some time with the transcript this morning. This was particularly alarming.
@ 44/113 Emphasis Added
According to Hulsizerâ€™s counsel, a portion of the parking rights is conveyed by the MUDA and itâ€™s associated Easement Agreements which will be assumed via bankruptcy as consented by Ellman. However, the other set of parking rights is conveyed via the AMULA.
@ 47/113 Emphasis Added
According to Mr. Tindall the AMULA doesnâ€™t exist anymore. Yet Mr. Coppoletta believes that the AMULA transfers parking rights to the team.
The AMULA exists when it is transferring parking rights but it does not exist when it contains the arena management fee? They may want to get on the same page.
The way this is going you can't bank on anything. The whole process has been at a standstill for 4 months with all sides holding thier breath hoping that they can hold out longer than the other guy.
Hulsizer won't pay a dime more than $70M
The NHL won't lower the price from $170M
The GoG can't sell the bonds of $100M
The GWI says they will sue as soon as the CoG flinches
Bettman thinks the CoG should be able to do whatever they want regardless of laws.
Mayor Scruggs has come down with an inferiority complex and thinks everyone hates her.
And you are promising that this team will be in Glendale next year.
Along that line, I did dig up some info on the Superdome management fee since it was brought up in the last thread, an example of how government bodies are trying to move away from pure subsidies.
From the state's stadium district management's performance audit, 2006:
Here's a PDF of the 2009 audit of the fee structure:
I think not. It appears that these deals include several elements, including fees, and a separate item for expenses and upgrades, etc., depending on what is actually negotiated in the agreement.
Again, you're very good at missing the point
I never stated that Arizona media hasn't ever stated anything negative about the situation. My original comment was focusing on the circle jerking by the Winnipeg Supporters in the Phoenix thread that use biased Canadian media [mod] to support their smug attitude about the team relocating back in their city, all the while systematically shrugging any and all reports that might be favorable to the team staying in Phoenix (as little of a breakthrough as Colangelo being involved is). This attitude is also present regarding the Atlanta situation. The Winnipeg Free Press and TSN say "our opinion is that if Phoenix doesn't move, Atlanta will" and all of sudden Winnipeg fans think that they are guaranteed a franchise even though the situation is far from being resolved in Phoenix and there is nothing proving that Atlanta will move anywhere.
From the same article...
Those investors and/or financial institutions would not be scared off by Goldwaterâ€™s opposition and promised lawsuit, and would be willing to finance a hockey franchise that has been losing $25 million to $45 million a year.
So just how many investors and/or financial institutions are going to jump at this? If you are an investor, that means you are doing it with the hope of making money, not losing money.
With a good owner that cares for the team, better arena/parking terms and the elimination of crooks like Gretzky and his cronies that bled the finances of the team dry, perhaps the team can become profitable? Did you ever think of that, or do you think everything is static in the world of economics?
If that's the case, then I guess the tradition dictates that Winnipeg would continue to draw less than Phoenix did, since it has been proven that Phoenix outdrew the Jets in all of its years of existence.
Yup. The founders of the US system of democracy clearly thought through the need for checks and balances. There are all sorts of legal and bureaucratic constraints on elected officials that are there to explicitly protect tax payers and to ensure that corruption is minimized. For example, politicians cannot simply give government contracts to friends and family members. There are formal tendering rules to try to minimize bribery and corruption. If Glendale city council was given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, regardless of their legal obligations just because they "have the votes", that would be contrary to the very system of democracy that has been rather effective in the US. In this specific case, I would think that if the COG wanted, they could avail themselves of remedies that would clarify the legality of their intended actions. They have chosen not to exercise them. That is their prerogative, as is it perfectly legitimate for the GWI to demand access to public documents and to challenge the legality of the proposed deal publicly. Actually, I think that this whole saga shows that the system of checks and balances is working rather well, and I would think the same thing if the COG had taken the initiative to get a declarative judgment setting aside the GWI's assertions.
Why oh why do people keep bringing up a city that has nothing to do with this? Where did I mention Winnipeg? And how does the economic viability of a team that doesn't even exist have anything to do with one that does?
I said given 15 years of losing money in Glendale, investors are not going to jump in the pool, when the water looks cold. If they were willing to, the bonds would have sold already. Can you guarentee to investors that this team will EVER make money , after losing for 15 years. Nope, didn't think so. And in this economy, why would you risk your money on a hockey team, instead of something safer.
Thanks CF. Very enlightening.
It seems clear that this is a new AMULA. It is with a new party and has many provisions that are different from the previous AMULAs. If a substantial portion of the parking rights are to be transferred on the basis of the new AMULA, then doesn't it follow that this has been negotiated afresh with Hulsizer? In that case, is it not legitimate to ask why Glendale would negotiate away the rights to the parking revenue on their land, only to buy back those rights from the new lease holder?
I'm sure people share information. Do I think the people that share the information actually know anything concrete about the situation? Absolutely not. Unless it's an inside job by the NHL to put pressure on Glendale to fix the situation (at which point it would be going against the obvious hopes and aspirations of the Canadian journalists they are sharing the info with), I don't think anyone directly involved barring maybe the GWI is sharing info with the Canadian media.
Maybe people marginally involved are, but it's not information I would trust, especially when a clear bias is noticeable
Furthermore, I wouldn't put it past anyone to simply embellish certain info to further their cause. That seems to be the case with Dave Naylor:
Thanks for telling me about what "certain people close to the situation" think Dave
Separate names with a comma.