I think you are incorrect wrt to the timing. The JR offer was going to be presented right as Moyes got wind of it and took the team to BK. The NHL advances had already taken place.
Yes, yes, of course I never know what I am talking about. I never do a bit of research, right?
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_150.pdf
As I have previously noted, the NHL did make advances to the team in respect of amounts to which the team was to be eventually entitled. Some $31.4M, in fact, although the amount at the time of petition was $23.6M (as some of the advances had already been credited back due to the distribution of NHL TV monies in late 2008). These advances were not, however, the loans which the NHL eventually recouped as a creditor under the bankruptcy. The advances would have eventually been credited back when the 2008-09 central revenue and revenue sharing was distributed in October/November 2009. THOSE loans were ADDITIONAL loans comprised of the outstanding NHL indebtedness (which began after the team exhausted ALL of its revenue sharing and central revenue advances) and the DIP (debtor-in-possession) financing.
At the time of petition, the amount of third party indebtedness (to SOF Investments) was $79.6M (para 32 of the linked document).
At the time of petition, the amount borrowed from the NHL (after the team had exhausted all of its 2008-09 advances) was $13.4M.
$79.6M + $13.4M =
$93M.
Had he accepted the JR offer, those are the balances of indebtedness he would have been required to satisfy. Instead, the interest on SOF accumulated for 6 more months (~$1M more) and the indebtedness to the NHL grew to $36.3M. As well, the NHL paid in $2M to be set aside for the lawyers and accountants (effectively coming out of Moyes' pocket, since it reduced his potential recovery). As well, the lawyers for everybody have been drawing against the bankrupt estate for 2 years now. There are still several million left in the estate, but not much. For the financial summary of payments at the end:
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/deweyranchhockey/docs/Coyotes part 1.pdf
Regarding the underlined part? How do you get an advance against future revenue sharing, spend it, and then get a credit back????
I will ignore that, since you missed what was trying to be conveyed. The above should satisfy your grave concerns over my mathematics.
I think there was a claim made here by a poster that Moyes would have received $30-40MM if he'd accept the NHL's brokered deal with Reinsdorf. That is simply incorrect.
Your post quoted above at the beginning of my post constituted the sum total of your rationale for suggesting "that is simply incorrect". i would suggest that one has to actually try and rebut something instead of unilaterally declaring it incorrect, particuarly when it is written by someone who you know to have a wide array of information at their disposal and the wherewithal to digest and understand it.
In any event, the numbers are produced for all to see. Moyes made a mistake that cost him huge.
As I have also noted before, and Mouser supported as well, that is without even taking into account the $60M claim ($15M of which is covered by the personal guaranty - i.e., a no-brainer).
The continued insistence on making me - a proven contributor here, with no history of fabrication - jump through hoops, while allowing other posters to post unsupported positions, is noted.
Who knows? We haven't had any updates on the status of that suit, first of all. Secondly all Moyes has to show is that the contracts were with the LLC's and not him at some relevant point in time, so I don't know why you place any kind of certainty on the Gretzky portion of things since it has yet to happen. The NHL has needed Moyes' cooperation in handling the AMULA's while Glendale worked out its issues. We simply don't know what else they've agreed to nor do we know what happened to that suit.
We certainly do not know for sure, but you should be made aware that Moyes' cooperation has been limited. The limit has been to facilitate NHL and COG transactions which suit his purpose of limiting
his exposure (i.e., getting a new local deal with MH), but rest assured that he has been fighting hammer and tong with the parties on any and all other issues. One need only review the record to identify numerous fierce spats between the parties since the team was sold.
CF had uncovered the NHL/Moyes lawsuit. Perhaps he can confirm whether it is still pending.
Regarding Gretzky, the bankruptcy record, particuarly the deposition transcripts, are replete with evidence that the Gretzky contracts were with Moyes personally. Even Rodier fessed up to it in one of his emails to Moyes' counsel.
Here's another way to look at it. Moyes, by exiting and gaining bankruptcy protection isn't losing $30 MM per year, or more, any longer. He's about $60-70 MM ahead right now. In the meantime, he may have gained some personal satisfaction by upsetting Beasley's attempt to run around him. He also is free and clear of the claims from Glendale for terminating the lease. Could he have accepted JR and achieved the same thing? Maybe, but one does wonder why he responded with such, well, ferocity.
That is not a feasible way of looking at it. If he had taken JR's deal (remember, that is the subject), he would not have undertaken those losses either.
he was not free and clear from any of COG's claims for terminating the lease, either. As an aside, the COG also sued him personally, IIRC.
He did not respond with anything approaching ferocity. He simply was a desperate guy (for reasons related to his other affairs) who went for the big potential score. There is nothing to support he was acting out of vengeance. If you were more familiar with the most duplicitous parts of what he did in terms of his legal trickery (I can expand if you wish), you would know that he simply got swept along with a bunch of lawyers who wanted to try out a few tricks for their own edification.
I think bankruptcy laws will always trump any contracts between private parties if these are designed to prevent one party from seeking protection from creditors. What the NHL may want to do is keep a closer on eye on owners leveraging the team itself when seeking credit (e.g., Dallas and Hicks).
Bankruptcy laws will protect creditors, but they don't act so as to invalidate personal guarantees of principals of a bankrupt company. In order to stop them, the personal guarantor must himself go bankrupt. Personal guarantees are what lenders require in order to prevent being exposed if the borrower itself goes bankrupt.
= Canada
