Phoenix XXXV: Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave...

[Fugu]

...and Grooving with GWI.


Hat tip to kdb.

Last thread:http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=905991

Click to read more...

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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
​

 

[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]

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.

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.

 

[rj]

Fugu:
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.

On the bright side if this occurs, it can serve as a warning stopping more cities from subsidizing sports teams and their arenas/stadiums.

seanlinden:

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.

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.

 

[Killion]

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.

 

[gifted88]

The way this is going you can almost bank on the Yotes playing in Phoenix next year.

 

[Roadrage]

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.

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?

 

[CGG]

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.

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.

 

[rj]

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...

 

[kdb209]

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.

 

[CasualFan]

I spent some time with the transcript this morning. This was particularly alarming.

@ 44/113 Emphasis Added

MR. HULSIZER: Okay. So parking rights are owned by the City. I can't answer this, Jay. I mean, I don't -- we don't see that. I think it's complicated, but I think, you know ...

MR. COPPOLETTA: Right, it is complicated. But, basically, the Arena manager and team get the parking rights two different ways. One of them was through a parking -- I can't remember the exact name, but a parking mixed-use development agreement with an entity controlled by Steve Ellman, and I think that's 2600-and-some spaces, and that's a contract that -- the bankruptcy process is ongoing, but that's a contract that can -- you know, the team would assume. There was a consent requirement under that. We have a signed consent from Steve Ellman to allow the transfer of those parking rights to go from the entity that we're attempting to buy, back to the City as part of the transfer of rights. So that's one set of rights. The other set of rights goes back to the original 2001 -- I'm going to get the nomenclature wrong -- "Am-mul"?

MAYOR SCRUGGS: "Am-u-la."

MR. COPPOLETTA: "Am-u-la." -- AMULA from 2001, which, again, it's kind of hanging out there in bankruptcy, but we get the rights to land, that maybe the City may own the dirt, but they convey the rights to control, operate, and get revenues from parking from, to the team, ten years ago.

According to Hulsizer’s counsel, a portion of the parking rights is conveyed by the MUDA and it’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

MR. DRANIAS: Let me just ask you this: How do you explain, then, that under the original AMULA with the original team, they were being paid $500,000 a year as opposed to your deal –

MR. HULSIZER: That's why they're bankrupt. That's why we're here. It doesn't work.

MR. TINDALL: That's a ten-year-old agreement. It doesn't exist anymore. I don't understand why it would have any relevance –

According to Mr. Tindall the AMULA doesn’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.

 

[cbcwpg]

The way this is going you can almost bank on the Yotes playing in Phoenix next year.

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.

 

[Fugu]

On the bright side if this occurs, it can serve as a warning stopping more cities from subsidizing sports teams and their arenas/stadiums.

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.

Because the New Orleans Saints, like most NFL teams, keep all game-day revenue from the state-owned Superdome, a work stoppage wouldn't put a dent in the state's coffers.
If anything, a season-long lockout would allow the LSED to save nearly $1.2 million in game-day staffing, said Doug Thornton, the regional vice president of SMG, the company that manages the Superdome and the adjacent New Orleans Arena for the state.
...

In reaching a deal nearly two years ago that would keep the Saints playing in the Superdome to 2025 and create revenue streams for the Saints, the state built in a clause that alleviated much of its financial burden to the team if the 2011 season is lost because of a lockout.
According to the 15-year lease, the new revenue would reduce the state's financial obligation to the Saints based on a sliding scale, with the most the team could receive in a year capped at $6 million if the team generates less than $7 million in new game-day revenue. The state's payment drops to zero if the Saints generate at least $12.5 million in new revenue.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/03/nfl_lockout_wont_hurt_superdom.html

Alone, those might make the deal palatable. But when you add in the deal is structured so the state's financial obligation to the Saints considerably is lessened, down from the current $23.5 million the state owes this year under terms of the current agreement, to no more than $6 million per year under the proposed agreement, then it becomes that much more attractive.
And that $6 million could shrink, depending on whether the team can increase its revenue.
The state will pay at least $85 million in Superdome improvements, including added seating and suites, to help provide an avenue for the increase. And Saints owner Tom Benson will buy New Orleans Centre and Dominion Tower, and will lease to the state 320,000 square feet at Dominion Tower for state agencies.

http://blog.nola.com/johndeshazier/2009/04/proposal_a_winwin_for_louisian.html


From the state's stadium district management's performance audit, 2006:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNH7G5p8Q22e4OSK7pIYwg_-71IylQ&cad=rja

Over the last three fiscal years, the state has paid
SMG a total of $7,770,918 in management fees, in
addition to the $6,927,353 SMG paid to the
Superdome Marketing and Promotional Fund.
These fees do not include any operating expenses

SMG has projected that its fee will be no more
than $1,085,000 under the revised fee structure
that takes effect July 1, 2006, adjusted annually for
inflation. However, the projected fee is higher
than the fees paid in other states.

Here's a PDF of the 2009 audit of the fee structure:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNFcSH4ttS3t75_Qn163bbiFlNXFcg&cad=rja



And:
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/NewOrleansSaints/newindex.htm

The Saints currently are receiving $23.5 million a year in cash inducements from the state. The agreement - brokered by former Gov. Mike Foster - guaranteed the team $186.5 million in state subsidies through 2010.
The state is struggling to meet the annual payments to the franchise. The largest problem is that hotel and motel tax collections are falling short. The state also is grappling with a budget shortfall of more than $1 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
Bill Curl, media relations coordinator for SMG, which manages the Superdome, said the state is looking at "creative" ways of helping the Saints generate more money for themselves.
The idea, Curl said, is to look at ways to create more revenue to decrease the amount of direct payment from the state. (Baton Rouge Advocate)

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.

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.

 

[mrCoffea*]

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
​

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.

 

[cbcwpg]

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."

From the same article...

Those investors and/or financial institutions would not be scared off by Goldwater’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.

 

[mrCoffea*]

From the same article...

Those investors and/or financial institutions would not be scared off by Goldwater’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.

 

[Whileee]

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.

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.

 

[cbcwpg]

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.

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.

 

[Whileee]

I spent some time with the transcript this morning. This was particularly alarming.

@ 44/113 Emphasis Added



According to Hulsizer’s counsel, a portion of the parking rights is conveyed by the MUDA and it’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 doesn’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.

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?

 

[mrCoffea*]

Yes or no, do you honestly believe that the NHL and some of its employees do not share information anonymously with some media, sometimes with the attempt to tighten the vise on Glendale to approve the funding to get done, otherwise "you'll lose your team?"

If a Toronto-area top hockey journalist is sharing information on the situation, it's pretty clear who the source is even if it's "anonymous". If you're incapable of understanding that, I have the Brooklyn Bridge for sale that you can buy.

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:

Here

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/dave_naylor/?id=360362

and here

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/?id=363474

Thanks for telling me about what "certain people close to the situation" think Dave