Phoenix XXXV: Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave...
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
That's something I've been asking all along. The fact that Moyes had not terminated the old AMULA in bankruptcy court is one part of this puzzle, but that did subsequently happen after meetings with the NHL and COG. So if I'm following this correctly, COG had a chance to claim back something that is ostensibly worth some portion of that $100 MM that Hulsizer would somehow come to own by purchasing the team? The NHL would sell this to Hulsizer and throw in a franchise for $70 MM, or sell it for far less.
I have been trying to follow the money trail and have failed on numerous attempts.
borno87
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2010
- 334
- 0
DEBUNKING TIME!
Gary Bettman said in an interview with Hockey Central, and on TSN radio 1050 that "GWI had killed the deal/blown the deal up" From his comments and the recent reports from the Arizona and "Canadian Media", the deal with MH that centered around the Bond issue is dead. That's not to say the possibility of deal structured differently does not exist, however the deal agreed to in December appears to be dead, and this was confirmed by Mr. Bettman himself.
Again, you are leaving out specific context. In the WFP article you are speaking about (I am assuming because you failed to provide a link) Lawless clearly stipulates that the attorney's he spoke to were speculating about the next steps according to common practive. Lawless was not reporting that something had happened, merely providing readers with a possibility about how a relocation transaction would proceed. Reckless journalism by Lawless based on little fact? Perhaps, however to state that Lawless reported that something was happening is not entirely correct. I agree that some posters may need to be a little more skeptical about some of the stories that have been written on this subject, however using that example to justify your disdain for all "Canadian media" is a reach.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...nets-Coyotes-to-Winnipeg-story-119782404.html
This is so vague that I can't even respond to it. Again you seem to have a problem recognizing the difference between a news report and a column. Column's are the opportunity for a trained writer to express an opinion, there is nothing wrong with Naylor or anyone else for that matter disagreeing with Bryzgalov's assessment of Winnipeg.
Posters need to earn the benefit of the doubt. As I have pointed out above, your characterization of the "Canadian Media" and the broad disrespect for any point of view that differs from your own, be it a recognized columnist or poster on this board undermines your own credibility. For the most part, everyone sources and quotes specific items anytime they are in a lengthy discussion, sometimes digging into threads from a year ago to dig out specific posts previously posted that are relevant. GSC, CF et al are good examples of posters who share your point of view but manage to express their opinions in a focused and fact based style that you should be striving for.
Gary Bettman said in an interview with Hockey Central, and on TSN radio 1050 that "GWI had killed the deal/blown the deal up" From his comments and the recent reports from the Arizona and "Canadian Media", the deal with MH that centered around the Bond issue is dead. That's not to say the possibility of deal structured differently does not exist, however the deal agreed to in December appears to be dead, and this was confirmed by Mr. Bettman himself.
Again, you are leaving out specific context. In the WFP article you are speaking about (I am assuming because you failed to provide a link) Lawless clearly stipulates that the attorney's he spoke to were speculating about the next steps according to common practive. Lawless was not reporting that something had happened, merely providing readers with a possibility about how a relocation transaction would proceed. Reckless journalism by Lawless based on little fact? Perhaps, however to state that Lawless reported that something was happening is not entirely correct. I agree that some posters may need to be a little more skeptical about some of the stories that have been written on this subject, however using that example to justify your disdain for all "Canadian media" is a reach.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...nets-Coyotes-to-Winnipeg-story-119782404.html
This is so vague that I can't even respond to it. Again you seem to have a problem recognizing the difference between a news report and a column. Column's are the opportunity for a trained writer to express an opinion, there is nothing wrong with Naylor or anyone else for that matter disagreeing with Bryzgalov's assessment of Winnipeg.
Posters need to earn the benefit of the doubt. As I have pointed out above, your characterization of the "Canadian Media" and the broad disrespect for any point of view that differs from your own, be it a recognized columnist or poster on this board undermines your own credibility. For the most part, everyone sources and quotes specific items anytime they are in a lengthy discussion, sometimes digging into threads from a year ago to dig out specific posts previously posted that are relevant. GSC, CF et al are good examples of posters who share your point of view but manage to express their opinions in a focused and fact based style that you should be striving for.
Listen man, I stated what I believed to be fabrications and intentional misrepresentations
Saying "sources close to glendale have confirmed x", and the retracting what you said implies a fabrication and intentional misrepresentation
Using info from a lawyer that isn't directly involved with the situation in order provide economic variables that *might* come into play is intentional misrepresentation.
The story in question is here: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...-trigger-campaign-for-NHL-season-tickets.html
Since you are picky about sources, there it is. A clear example of intentional misrepresentation. Then again, nearly every article on this page:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/special/nhl/articles/
can be accused of the same thing, though that one was the most blatant. If you want, I can point everything wrong with each and every one of those articles that are continuously cited over here. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do so today, but maybe tomorrow
oops, this is the article I meant to post Fugu. Can't edit it in, but here it is in case my point isn't clear in my previous post:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...nets-Coyotes-to-Winnipeg-story-119782404.html
I both read the transcript and listened to the audio of the meeting. It is amazing to read the different perspectives on how this is viewed.
For my part, the GWI tried to run the meeting and acted like it was a free deposition. I believe my opinion will not be shared by most of the posters who view the GWI as basically doing "god's" work, but the GWI did not come off good. They failed to answer any questions, and I think they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic perimeters of the deal, or how the parking rights maybe transfered from the Moyes estate to the new potential owner.
Raising Ellman was a real red-herring as he does not hold the parking rights the team holds. Most posters who have read the January 2011 agreement and followed this transaction closely understand that 1) it lets Ellman off the hook for further development of parking spaces in the form of a lot, 2) takes away the annual penalty, 3) returns some money to his lender, and 4) does not address the parking rights held by the Moyes estate.
On this point, the GWI's arguments are reduced to really throwing **** against the wall.
To me, the only issue remaining is the resolve of the CoG to either sell the bonds, borrow the money from a bank, or use the Enterprise Fund as a stop gap to close the sale and purchase the parking rights. I was left with the impression that the resolve of the NHL and MH to close the deal remains as strong as ever.
If the GWI does sue, I think they understand they are taking somewhat of a flyer to try and get an even narrower reading of the Gift Clause than the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided under the Turken test. If the legislature were deciding the issue, I would give the GWI a solid chance. Not so much with our current court. And, while I would expect a counterclaim from the city may be dismissed, I wouldn't be surprised if the court included some stern language directed at the troubling conduct of the GWI. Of course, just my opinion.
Like I said, others will take away a different perspective on how the GWI appeared. And perspective is your reality. I just thought it was interesting that two reasonable people could listen to the same meeting and come away with such different opinions.
For my part, the GWI tried to run the meeting and acted like it was a free deposition. I believe my opinion will not be shared by most of the posters who view the GWI as basically doing "god's" work, but the GWI did not come off good. They failed to answer any questions, and I think they demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic perimeters of the deal, or how the parking rights maybe transfered from the Moyes estate to the new potential owner.
Raising Ellman was a real red-herring as he does not hold the parking rights the team holds. Most posters who have read the January 2011 agreement and followed this transaction closely understand that 1) it lets Ellman off the hook for further development of parking spaces in the form of a lot, 2) takes away the annual penalty, 3) returns some money to his lender, and 4) does not address the parking rights held by the Moyes estate.
On this point, the GWI's arguments are reduced to really throwing **** against the wall.
To me, the only issue remaining is the resolve of the CoG to either sell the bonds, borrow the money from a bank, or use the Enterprise Fund as a stop gap to close the sale and purchase the parking rights. I was left with the impression that the resolve of the NHL and MH to close the deal remains as strong as ever.
If the GWI does sue, I think they understand they are taking somewhat of a flyer to try and get an even narrower reading of the Gift Clause than the Arizona Supreme Court recently decided under the Turken test. If the legislature were deciding the issue, I would give the GWI a solid chance. Not so much with our current court. And, while I would expect a counterclaim from the city may be dismissed, I wouldn't be surprised if the court included some stern language directed at the troubling conduct of the GWI. Of course, just my opinion.
Like I said, others will take away a different perspective on how the GWI appeared. And perspective is your reality. I just thought it was interesting that two reasonable people could listen to the same meeting and come away with such different opinions.
goyotes, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion about this excerpt from CasualFan:
So of the 5,500 spaces, they're going to get 2600 for free via Ellman consent agreement, and the other 2,900 are covered by an old contract that the city's own attorney says isn't relevant and doesn't even exist anymore?
That would seem to justify all of GWI's concerns. It sounds like the best case is they're paying $100M for 2,900 spots, which changes the math quite a bit from the 5,500 space (mis?)representation.
That would seem to justify all of GWI's concerns. It sounds like the best case is they're paying $100M for 2,900 spots, which changes the math quite a bit from the 5,500 space (mis?)representation.
The AMULA doesn't exist because the NHL didn't purchase it out of bankruptcy, but the right to assume certain contracts still does exist; specifically parking owned by the estate can be assumed by the NHL until June 2011. I think this has been demonstrated pretty clearly to be the case, and either the GWI isn't doing their due diligence, or they are trying to play fast and loose with the facts to get a sound bite.
I like MH response to the arena management contract. And, while a poor choice or words "different flavors" I do think the City Attorney pointed out pretty effectively that the GWI is mixing apples with oranges when it compares the Super Dome agreement to an agreement that includes expenses, and provides for a profit sharing to the City if anticipated revenue exceeds historical expenses.
I like MH response to the arena management contract. And, while a poor choice or words "different flavors" I do think the City Attorney pointed out pretty effectively that the GWI is mixing apples with oranges when it compares the Super Dome agreement to an agreement that includes expenses, and provides for a profit sharing to the City if anticipated revenue exceeds historical expenses.
I don't understand that to be the case. You are mixing spaces to be built in a parking structure by Ellman that don't exist presently, with current parking spaces the Moyes Estate owns the right to use and charge on.
Interesting.
The NHL can assume certain contracts until June, fine. But they can't assume the parts of contracts that they want to assume and reject the parts they don't like, it's all or nothing on each contract. The NHL isn't assuming the AMULA, we all know that. If it's the AMULA contract itself that conveys the parking rights to the team, and the NHL isn't assuming the AMULA, I fail to see how the parking rights end up with the team. But I'm no lawyer.
That is a curious position to take considering that it was Hulsizer's counsel that indicated the AMULA from 2001 conveys the right to control the parking revenues to the team. Transcript:
Perhaps we might reconsider who is playing fast and loose with the facts.
southpaw24
Registered User
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
"we are viewed as failures in the BOG's boardroom"..... Thats not true. My 2nd cousins daughters husbands uncle is a custodian at 1251 Avenue of the Americas' in New York City & he once overheard Harley Hotchkiss...... Want more?.
Potrzebie
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2010
- 2,373
- 3,014
...except that documents from the bankruptcy indicate that PHX attendance numbers were "tickets distributed" and their actual average turnstile count was over 1,000 fewer per game than the WPG average, which was actual attendance. I'm sure Ghost can provide you with a copy.
You wouldn't be intentionally ignoring a document that contradicts your beliefs, would you? ... you mean like you just did? You need to calm down and accept that most people have an agenda, or a bias, yourself included. You seem preoccupied with the confirmation bias of other posters that do not share your viewpoint, and yet you conveniently ignore your own. I thought hypocrisy was one of your pet peeves?
PS: Please do not take my above statement as an indication that I believe any of the attendance figures, the ones from the bankruptcy included. I don't. I'm simply using it to illustrate that despite your continued accusations of other posters' bias and misrepresentation ("Winnipeggers on the Phoenix thread", as you so broadly painted) you at the same time expose your own.
Wrong article, I edited but the post was deleted. Regardless, this issue has been resolved between me and the administrator since it doesn't concern this topic
CF... you are always a reasonable poster. But, Coppoletta's statements do not differ with what I have said, IMO. The 2900 spaces addressed in the January 2011 agreement was for a garage that has yet to be built, and the parking rights related thereto once built. And, Coppoletta's statement as to the rights under the Moyes estate square with what I have said. He was brief and not exact in what he said, but he did say the parking rights coming to them arise out of the Moyes estate.
Please correct me if I am mistaken. I believe I have followed the contracts correctly and the chain of title.
It is most concerning if the conveyance of rights to the 2,900 spots was included in the AMULA of 2001 as indicated by Mr. Coppoletta (and Mr. Tindall who object to numerous other items spoke not a word to correct Coppoletta's understanding). This would give much credibility to Goldwater's claim that the conveyance was a "lease and buy back" scheme.
Completely irrelevant defence for the situation, especially when Canadian fans romanticize the Jets sad tenure in the NHL and clamor for teams that will "fill the arena" despite the MTS centre being A) undersized and B) Winnipeg not yet proving it can support a franchise at the prices you are alluding to, something that will be necessary before they can actually get the team. I'm not saying they can't do it, but they haven't yet and that's a fact.
I am not suggesting anything other than what is expressly stated in the transcript. Mr. Coppoletta is clearly stating that the conveyance of a portion of the parking rights is set forth in the AMULA of 2001. When you read the transcript, do you not see the same thing?
...except that documents from the bankruptcy indicate that PHX attendance numbers were "tickets distributed" and their actual average turnstile count was over 1,000 fewer per game than the WPG average, which was actual attendance. I'm sure Ghost can provide you with a copy.
... you mean like you just did? You need to calm down and accept that most people have an agenda, or a bias, yourself included. You seem preoccupied with the confirmation bias of other posters that do not share your viewpoint, and yet you conveniently ignore your own. I thought hypocrisy was one of your pet peeves?
PS: Please do not take my above statement as an indication that I believe any of the attendance figures, the ones from the bankruptcy included. I don't. I'm simply using it to illustrate that despite your continued accusations of other posters' bias and misrepresentation ("Winnipeggers on the Phoenix thread", as you so broadly painted) you at the same time expose your own.
As the administrator stated, please show me your source before bringing up these so called facts or else your post can't be taken seriously.
Furthermore, actual attendance is irrelevant if an extra 1000 per game were actually sold. It isn't uncommon for season ticket holders not to attend every single game, especially when it is businesses. The important thing is that Phoenix sold more tickets than Winnipeg did throughout its existence.
For the people romanticizing hockey in Winnipeg, embellishing the support for the team that the city displayed in a way that makes it seem like the "obvious choice" for a new franchise, this makes things look pretty bad when a number of people complained about the attendance in Phoenix as a way to support their cause.
What I read is someone who has trouble identifying the relevant documents. Frankly, I was amazed at the lack of understanding displayed by everyone; especially the mayor. Having said that, and the transcript aside, I think if the GWI did its due diligence, it would see that the Ellman rights are a red-herring and not part of what is assumable buy the NHL and transferable to MH as the new owner.
I wouldn't want to go to court and make that argument when the documents demonstrate otherwise.
Would you?
I never want to go to court
In the presence of Mr. Tindall and his complete knowledge of the transaction and his strong inclination to correct misstatements, I find the clear statement that a portion of the parking rights is conveyed via the AMULA of 2001 to be very troubling.
gifted88
Dante the poet
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.
I made no promises and I am not an expert. But from what has been reported it seems the NHL, COG, and MH are content to try and put this deal through anyway. Whether that happens or not IDK, but if it does we will be looking at months of court dates and legal mumbo jumbo that would set back any chance for relocation for next season. It's funny cause according to Bettman they haven't even been talking with potential owners looking to relocate, and I doubt they just jump on the phone and only make one call to TNSE.
Think about it, MH deal is declared dead by say the end of the playoffs. We're now in early June. The NHL starts getting bids from owners looking to relocate the team, which would eat up what? a month? so then we are in July with nothing really done yet and training camps 1 1/2 months away.
I hear what your saying, but the chances of a move for next year is getting slimmer by the day. Hard to deny that.
- Status
