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

Status
Not open for further replies.

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
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.

I think the record is less than clear. It was like taking a deposition of 8 people at the same time.;) I don't know that his failure to correct was because he 1) didn't follow what was being said, 2) agreed with what was being said, 3) was focusing on Darcy's mad steer down of the mayor, 4) thinking about what was for dinner or about having another cup cake, 5) ran out of steam at that point, or ....

What I am saying is, I don't put too much stock in the transcript since its inadmissable anyway as no one was under oath. Going back to the documents which will be admissable, I think they demonstrate that the 2,900 lots are not part of what is assumable under the Moyes estate.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
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.


In fact, I think GWI isn't mixing apples and oranges at all with regard to the management fees at all. My post here has the audit from the stadium district body of the management fees. The expenses, promo fund, and stadium upkeep are also factors in that agreement. I found it interesting that their game-day staff costing was $1.2 MM, a sum that is about what a top revenue generator in the NHL team earns from tickets. (Exhibiting that $18 MM, no matter how you slice it, for an arena really isn't justifiable.)
 

BrianL*

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

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.

If that is true, then I see no chance of Winnipeg getting the team. If the NHL is basically willing to start an alternate financing plan at this late stage, I think that indicates they have already made the decision to keep the team in Glendale next year, and will deal with whatever losses accumulate until such time as they can gather up the required investors.

TSN might as well dump the Jets Meter, and set the Winnipeg Gets Played Again Meter at 100.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
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."


So to get back on track as far as the latest developments, it seems the NHL will not pursue having COG finance MH.

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.


1. The NHL is working on a new plan to find $197 MM to give to MH so that he'll buy the team.

2. Hulsizer will not add any more money than he has previously committed.


Somebody somehow has to give MH $197MM, and then he'll give that to the NHL? (Or at least $170 MM of it.)

Does that mean he retains these parking rights? Does he still have the same management fee structure with COG?
 

CasualFan

Tortious Beadicus
Nov 27, 2009
3,215
0
Bay Area, CA
I think the record is less than clear. It was like taking a deposition of 8 people at the same time.;) I don't know that his failure to correct was because he 1) didn't follow what was being said, 2) agreed with what was being said, 3) was focusing on Darcy's mad steer down of the mayor, 4) thinking about what was for dinner or about having another cup cake, 5) ran out of steam at that point, or ....

What I am saying is, I don't put too much stock in the transcript since its inadmissable anyway as no one was under oath. Going back to the documents which will be admissable, I think they demonstrate that the 2,900 lots are not part of what is assumable under the Moyes estate.

While listening, it was difficult not to constantly say "form" or "foundation" to myself. I have long agreed that the path to the parking rights was clear. However, I am always capable of admitting that I could be in error. Having two highly capable attorneys in Coppoletta and Tindall transcribed regarding the AMULA of 2001 conveying rights was troubling to me.

I respect your point that the entire meeting was so awkward that it might be best to disregard it in it's entirety.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
While listening, it was difficult not to constantly say "form" or "foundation" to myself. I have long agreed that the path to the parking rights was clear. However, I am always capable of admitting that I could be in error. Having two highly capable attorneys in Coppoletta and Tindall transcribed regarding the AMULA of 2001 conveying rights was troubling to me.

I respect your point that the entire meeting was so awkward that it might be best to disregard it in it's entirety.

Agreed. And, it may all be moot if the CoG does not have the resolve to secure financing to buy the rights.

Cheers.;)
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
In fact, I think GWI isn't mixing apples and oranges at all with regard to the management fees at all. My post here has the audit from the stadium district body of the management fees. The expenses, promo fund, and stadium upkeep are also factors in that agreement. I found it interesting that their game-day staff costing was $1.2 MM, a sum that is about what a top revenue generator in the NHL team earns from tickets. (Exhibiting that $18 MM, no matter how you slice it, for an arena really isn't justifiable.)

Did you find it interesting that one of the questions the GWI did answer was that the Gift Clause does not require a competitive bid process?

I must confess that without reviewing the CoG's actual expense numbers, I find it hard to see why they claim it costs between $18 - $21 million a year to operate. Having said that, if that is the case, MH would have been better off getting a flat $5 million a year. I could see the GWI looking at this aspect of the deal, but the historical numbers in terms of cost of operation are part of the City's financials and I would think they are a matter of public record. I have not heard the GWI question those statements. It would be interesting to see what the GWI would say if those numbers were put in front of them as part of a larger question about commenting on $97 million over 5 years.
 

borno87

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
334
0
Dreger: On the beat, no news to report

Back to silence this week... this silence feels different then the stretch that preceded last week's news avalanche does it not?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/

3) The Saga Continues: At this point, all involved in the sale or relocation of the Phoenix Coyotes are carefully managing the information and details of the process. The NHL and the city of Glendale continue to work on initiatives to help finance the sale of the team to Matt Hulsizer, but there's no sense whatsoever as to whether or not progress is being made. "They're trying to be creative," is how one source familiar with the negotiations describes what appears to be a late push to get the deal done.
 

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
So to get back on track as far as the latest developments, it seems the NHL will not pursue having COG finance MH.




1. The NHL is working on a new plan to find $197 MM to give to MH so that he'll buy the team.

2. Hulsizer will not add any more money than he has previously committed.


Somebody somehow has to give MH $197MM, and then he'll give that to the NHL? (Or at least $170 MM of it.)

Does that mean he retains these parking rights? Does he still have the same management fee structure with COG?

i dont get this.

1. NHL needs 170M
2. Hulsizer only willing to put in 70M
3. Hulsizer wants extra money for losses.

other than the COG, who in their right mind would give hulsizer the money? Who's going to even loan him the money?

Unless this money is coming from the taxpayers in some way, i dont see how the deal works for hulsizer.
 

seanlinden

Registered User
Apr 28, 2009
24,826
1,343
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?

They do not have a lease for next year, which means there is absolutely nothing holding the team in Glendale beyond the NHL's desire to keep a team there, and all indications are that it's going to cost the City of Glendale $20m+ to have another lame duck season, if the NHL is even prepared to do that. If they want a team to sign a lease in that rink they're going to have to pay up. Yes -- they paid an exorbinant amount to build the rink 10 years ago, but that's a sunk cost.... now it's a question in whether or not they invest in a long term lease, or let teh area around the rink die.

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.

I'm not missing that point at all -- Goldwater can think whatever they want, but the fact is they simply aren't doing what is in the taxpayers best interests like they claim.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
...this silence feels different then the stretch that preceded last week's news avalanche does it not?

6th sense's tingling?. Sometimes it takes' last minute desperation to get things done. Still, he who procrastinates will have decisions made for him. If indeed the bond plans are dead & their "getting creative" in order to find an alternate source of financing, I wonder what that might be?. Is the NHL now willing to finance the purchase?. If a new deals crafted that features a CFD & pay for parking scenario with an out clause they just might. They bought & have been running the team through a LOC, so if their "in" to the tune of $210M, with $25M coming from the COG & $70M from MH their debt shrinks to app. $105M. Perhaps a deal could be structured whereby MH pays the interest at minimum, the principal down over 5yrs or whatever. There are ways to get this done if their serious about doing so. Either way, precious little time is left to do so. If the teams a goner' it best be gettin gone and fast.
 
Last edited:

Blue Shakehead

because lol Jets
Mar 18, 2011
3,038
1,591
www.becauseloljets.com
I'm not missing that point at all -- Goldwater can think whatever they want, but the fact is they simply aren't doing what is in the taxpayers best interests like they claim.

How so? Goldwater believes that Glendale is taking on $100M in additional debt plus $97M in arena management fees over 5 years. How is preventing $197M in additional debt / expenses not in the taxpayers interest?

750 minimum lower wage jobs does not equal $197 million. How many professional City jobs (policy, fire, infrastructure) could this money be otherwise directed to?

The only way one can assume that Goldwater is not doing whats in the taxpayers interest, is if you buy the City's claim that they will lose $500M if the Coyotes leave. That analysis is misleading. In fact, Judge Baum called this report "crystal ball analysis" and limited Glendale's claim to $2.5 million in the BK proceedings.

Furthermore, many teams have lost sports teams (see Winnipeg) and aside from one or two restaurants, life goes on. The damages from an economic perspective are minimal - and certainly not $500M.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
I'm not missing that point at all -- Goldwater can think whatever they want, but the fact is they simply aren't doing what is in the taxpayers best interests like they claim.

Preventing a municipal government from doing something illegal with taxpayer dollars is always in the best interests of the taxpayers. (Again, leaving aside whether a court of law would say it's illegal or not, Goldwater thinks it is).

You might also want to re-think what will happen if the team leaves compared to what will happen if the deal goes through. If the team leaves, maybe Westgate implodes, maybe not. If the team stays, the government has committed to spending something like $350 million on additional bond repayments and who knows how much in management fees, at least $97 million and likely more. At best, it's a gigantic risk with taxpayer money that some day might break even. At worst, it's throwing a whole pile of good money after bad.

Keeping the team in Glendale is "best" for Mayor Scruggy, it isn't necessarily what's "best" for the taxpayers.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
The NHL is planning to finance the selling of the team they own? Wouldn't surprise me at this point.

Im just speculating. Nothing more. Its one of several options. Im thinking the bonding dealeo's dead, taking GB's words on it seriously. Therefore, they'll be looking at a financing / loan scenario which may even require the suspension of the NHL's own Constitutional guidelines with respect to certain members of the BOG's "lending" $110M to the NHL, who in turn will pay off the bank with those funds & MH's $70M/COG's $25M. Favors & payback to come later. Hulsizer paying it down over 5yrs, retaining the parking rights & right to charge for it which he will plus a CFD; along with receiving the app. $97M in Arena Mgmnt Fees' X's 5yrs with an out clause thereafter if it all goes bad. Glendale can do no more. MH is not willing to invest a penny more than $70M, so here we are. Its' up to the NHL to either expedite a sale locally or sell the team for relo immediately, within days, between the 1st & 2nd round of the playoffs, now.......
 
Last edited:

Donwood

Registered User
Mar 13, 2011
1,393
2
Winnipeg
Im just speculating. Nothing more. Its one of several options. Im thinking the bonding dealeo's dead, taking GB's words on it seriously. Therefore, they'll be looking at a financing / loan scenario which may even require the suspension of the NHL's own Constitutional guidelines with respect to certain members of the BOG's "lending" $110M to the NHL who in turn will pay off the bank with those funds & MH's $70M/COG's $25M. Favors & payback to come later. Hulsizer paying it down over 5yrs, retaining the parking rights & right to charge for it which he will plus a CFD; along with receiving the app. $97M in Arena Mgmnt Fees' X's 5yrs with an out clause thereafter if it all goes bad.

I can't see the NHL's BoG argeeing to that in a million years.
 

mrCoffea*

Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSqKUXhf_U&feature=player_embedded

Colangelo interview about his views on hockey, Doesn't sound like the savior for the Coyotes

Mod: deleted.

All he's saying in that quote is the truth: it's an uphill battle. Does it mean it's impossible? No, as certain success stories as recent as 3 years ago (Nashville Predators, who are doing VERY well for themselves since they got an owner that cares for the team and good management). There's plenty of other success stories in the southern markets that we can look up to. The fact of the matter is, hockey is as popular as it has ever been in the United States, and its growth in the past decade is second only to the NFL while certain other sports have regressed, such as Baseball. Sources for this: the new american tv deal, this article and this article. There are plenty of other examples of this.

Furthermore, Colangelo's out of context quote doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the franchise, nor that he wouldn't help it stay in Arizona.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
All he's saying in that quote is the truth: it's an uphill battle. Does it mean it's impossible? No, as certain success stories as recent as 3 years ago (Nashville Predators, who are doing VERY well for themselves since they got an owner that cares for the team and good management). There's plenty of other success stories in the southern markets that we can look up to. The fact of the matter is, hockey is as popular as it has ever been in the United States, and its growth in the past decade is second only to the NFL while certain other sports have regressed, such as Baseball. Sources for this: the new american tv deal, this article and this article. There are plenty of other examples of this.

Furthermore, Colangelo's out of context quote doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the franchise, nor that he wouldn't help it stay in Arizona.
I usually agree with you but Jerry is not a man to lie. That looks pretty bad.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
While I would love to see Jerry get involved because I have tremendous respect for him, I give it less than a 5% chance of him having any kind of an on-going relationship with the team. Likely, Gary was talking to him to see what locally could be done to find investors and/or pressure points on the GWI or perhaps Kendrick who Jerry has no love loss for.

I wish he had some interest in owning the team, but at his age, I believe he would agree those challenges are for a younger man.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I can't see the NHL's BoG argeeing to that in a million years.

Leipold & AEG lent money to Del Biaggio; Norris Sr. lent money to Boston, Detroit & New York. It wouldnt surprise me, nor would it require any kind of majority vote amongst the 29 members. Bettman could simply go to one or three of the wealthier members, secure the funds & present it to the board as a fait au compli'. :naughty:
 

mrCoffea*

Guest
Preventing a municipal government from doing something illegal with taxpayer dollars is always in the best interests of the taxpayers. (Again, leaving aside whether a court of law would say it's illegal or not, Goldwater thinks it is).

You might also want to re-think what will happen if the team leaves compared to what will happen if the deal goes through. If the team leaves, maybe Westgate implodes, maybe not. If the team stays, the government has committed to spending something like $350 million on additional bond repayments and who knows how much in management fees, at least $97 million and likely more. At best, it's a gigantic risk with taxpayer money that some day might break even. At worst, it's throwing a whole pile of good money after bad.

Keeping the team in Glendale is "best" for Mayor Scruggy, it isn't necessarily what's "best" for the taxpayers.

It's not "always in the interest of the taxpayers" if stopping the city from applying a band-aid ends up causing the city to bleed to death. That's exactly what the situation is here. They might be stopping a *potential* (not even confirmed) illegal transaction that might end up saving the city from losing much more money in the future.

Mod.

It's clear that losing your main tenant in an arena that was built in your city for the sole purpose of turning it into a hot spot, and thus increasing its status as an entertainment destination where people go to spend money would have an incredible impact on the economy of the city. Whether it's 500 million, less or more, it's still going to cost the city and eventually its tax payers LOTS of money. Sometimes risks are worthy of the reward, and that's clearly how the City of Glendale feels in regards to the whole bond issue. They aren't doing this for the love of hockey, they are doing this because they NEED to do this. If they could afford to lose the franchise and let the arena sit dormant, they wouldn't be as involved as they are.
 

Koss

Registered User
just think of the conflict of interest in an NHL franchise owing a mortgage payable to the league that it plays in. The league would have to count on the financial success of the franchise (which has been argued here tied to its on ice success) in order for the league not to lose it's investment. There would be speculation surrounding this franchise and this deal for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->