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

[DeathToAllButMetal]

I believe you have #1 and 2 mixed up. He can't buy the team until he gives a cheque to the NHL which means the city would have to pay him ahead of time.

Number 1 referred to the NHL okaying the sale to Hulsizer in the first place, which sets up the subsidy from Glendale. You could reverse them, though. Glendale itself doesn't have a clue what the order is, based on the routinely dimwitted comments that city reps have been making the past couple of months.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

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 forget that the tenant drawing those people loses $20 million per year and has for the past 15 years. You also fail to mention that of the $500 mil damages the CoG claims will have, according to documents filed by the CoG, half that comes from non-hockey events which should not be impacted by the team leaving.

secondly, the government is for the people by the people, or at least that is what it is supposed to be here in the US. This is NOT a business transaction, it is a government transaction. The governments never care about profit and loss, they just want to know how much they can spend. If giving a business a subsidy was not against the law, there would be only one or two threads for this and the team would have been sold.

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.

What concerns me is that the most recent signed agreement specifically states that the land and the parking improvements on it are owned by the city of Glendale. IF they own it, how did they convey it or did they convey it and receive compensation? If they did and they are now buying it back for more than what they conveyed it for, which value is correct? Did it really go from generating the original numbers to the new numbers? And which numbers should someone believe? The numbers the CoG filed in bankruptcy or their "new" numbers?

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.

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.

They can claim all they want but what they are really doing is trying to prevent the CoG from performing an illegal transaction using taxpayer money.

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.

So they lose $500 mil if they leave, they pay $370 mil for the bonds and have a exposure for $97 mil for the first 5 years and maybe another $5 mil a year more for another 20+ years. Which is the bigger number?

To me, they claim $500 mil if they leave yet they want to provide over $500 mil to keep them.

 

[borno87]

Clearly the City of Glendale knows more than anyone else what the situation is. You think they would be fighting this hard if losing the team didn't matter to the overall health of the city and its plans for the Westgate development? I'll trust the city with all the data, analysts and economists over the educated guess of a fan that they *might* be exaggerating their claims

What you are forgetting is that the CoG are politicians. Ultimately what causes politicians to act in a given fashion is not the best course of action, but rather the path that provides political shelter and future reelection.

The current CoG regime is responsible for Jobing.com arena. Should the Coyotes leave, the current council and especially the Mayor herself will face intense criticism from their opposition in the next round of elections if the job ends up being th white elephant they fear it is. City manager Beasley and council Tindall would surely have lost their jobs already (those positions are appointed) had they not cooked up this deal, and their future employment is similarly tied to the fate of the job and the current council. (I'm fact some posters have convincingly argued they should have already been kicked to the curb)

Save the team, save your job. Many have argued on these boards that CoG is screwed either way. CoG and Scruggs likely realize this as well, the only difference being that if they can close this deal, they will have an easier time of staying in their cushy municipal gigs, and the true repercussions of financing the deal for MH will only be realized when the current municipal government is loooooong gone.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Then let's see it! Hulsizer's asking for hundreds of millions in support directly from Glendale taxpayers...but his business plan is, uh, nobody's business?

Come on. The very least Hulsizer could do is go public with his business plan to turn the Coyotes around. This is just another glaring example of how this whole scam of a deal has been done behind the scenes by Glendale, Hulsizer, and the NHL.

Why should he?

 

[Doc Scurlock]

Why should he?

Because if he's asking for public money then the public are essentially the investors. I don't know how you think the business world works but generally if you're investing in a company you want to make sure they have a plan and actually know what they're doing.

 

[seanlinden]

You forget that the tenant drawing those people loses $20 million per year and has for the past 15 years. You also fail to mention that of the $500 mil damages the CoG claims will have, according to documents filed by the CoG, half that comes from non-hockey events which should not be impacted by the team leaving.

secondly, the government is for the people by the people, or at least that is what it is supposed to be here in the US. This is NOT a business transaction, it is a government transaction. The governments never care about profit and loss, they just want to know how much they can spend. If giving a business a subsidy was not against the law, there would be only one or two threads for this and the team would have been sold.

They can claim all they want but what they are really doing is trying to prevent the CoG from performing an illegal transaction using taxpayer money.

Again, I'm not forgetting anything. There's no question that the team lost money, that doesn't mean it's not viable with new ownership and a more favourable lease. The City has invested valuable resources into experts to consult on this matter and they feel this is the best alternative (for one, operating an arena of that size without an anchor tenant is highly impractical). Private enterprise is investing significant resources because they believe it can work. If Goldwater had more information as to why they think there's a better alternative, they should've brought that information forward in December.

Secondly, this is a business transaction for the people. Governments absolutely have to concern themselves with profit and loss, or in government terms, surplus and deficit. There's nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. Goldwater is trying to argue that it isn't a subsidy, rather a gift.

There's an old saying -- something is only illegal once it is found to be illegal. Just because Goldwater thinks it's illegal, doesn't make it so. What they are really trying to do is interfere with the best interests of the taxpayers as determined by their elected representatives, under the guise of working in the taxpayers best interests. The members of City Council has the final say on what's in the taxpayer's best interests until they are removed from said position.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Because if he's asking for public money then the public are essentially the investors. I don't know how you think the business world works but generally if you're investing in a company you want to make sure they have a plan and actually know what they're doing.

When a company looks for investors, it does indeed disclose its business plan, as well as other caveats that will convince people to dig deep.

But in this case, the investor is the City of Glendale. They may be using money levied from taxpayers/people who purchased bonds, but as soon as they paid, the money became the CoG's, who are able to spend it to their discretion (within obvious limits).

Hulsizer has convinced CoG. He has no reason to tell anyone else whatever his business plan may be (or if it even exists).

 

[southpaw24]

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.

And have the great fans of the coyote's proved that they can support a team at the prices that I alluded??

tit for tat

 

[Fourier]

I think they do. You can take most of what's written on any Canadian board to the streets of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and continue the conversation with the average sports fan that you meet.

I don't think you could do the same between what's being said on an American board.

Keep in mind our sports stations start their highlights with Hockey, and dedicate a majority of their sports news to hockey related talk. In the USA, ESPN barely even inputs the scores and good luck seeing any highlights.

You just can't compare the situation here compared to there. I've lived in both The percentage of people in countries, I've seen it first hand

The percentage of people in Canada for whom hockey is a passion is most definitely larger than it is in the US. And of course the media plays to this. But there are also many more people who follow the NHL at the very most casually if at all than there are those who live and die by what happens on the ice.

By way of comparison, the Briar tends to draw an audience that competes with or exceeds the typical NHL playoff game on TSN. Even the Scotties is not so far behind.

I am not even sure if you can define the average sports fan. But they are not the ones posting on this board. People on these boards have a disproportionate view of the importance of the NHL let alone in terms of how big a story the Yotes might really be.

 

[Fugu]

Again, I'm not forgetting anything. There's no question that the team lost money, that doesn't mean it's not viable with new ownership and a more favourable lease. The City has invested valuable resources into experts to consult on this matter and they feel this is the best alternative (for one, operating an arena of that size without an anchor tenant is highly impractical). Private enterprise is investing significant resources because they believe it can work. If Goldwater had more information as to why they think there's a better alternative, they should've brought that information forward in December.

Secondly, this is a business transaction for the people. Governments absolutely have to concern themselves with profit and loss, or in government terms, surplus and deficit. There's nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. Goldwater is trying to argue that it isn't a subsidy, rather a gift.

There's an old saying -- something is only illegal once it is found to be illegal. Just because Goldwater thinks it's illegal, doesn't make it so. What they are really trying to do is interfere with the best interests of the taxpayers as determined by their elected representatives, under the guise of working in the taxpayers best interests. The members of City Council has the final say on what's in the taxpayer's best interests until they are removed from said position.

They believe it is illegal, therefore they have informed COG that they plan to challenge the legality. COG has the ball in their court. I keep saying this, but if they were absolutely certain, they should just move ahead. Maybe they aren't certain.

You also cannot claim that government officials always act in a way that is best for the people, can you? I'm fascinated by the number of times public officials end up in cushy jobs with the private companies who courted the government's favors whilst these guys were in office. Or what about the civil servants? Are they beyond reproach in all regards? Maybe. Maybe not.

COG left themselves open to this and no amount of kvetching about motives, agendas, politics and democracy is going to change the wording of the constitution and that it's being used against them.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Clearly the City of Glendale knows more than anyone else what the situation is. You think they would be fighting this hard if losing the team didn't matter to the overall health of the city and its plans for the Westgate development? I'll trust the city with all the data, analysts and economists over the educated guess of a fan that they *might* be exaggerating their claims

Okay, then let's see the numbers. Let's see Glendale actually put out some data and economic analyses that clearly show life without the Coyotes and life with the Coyotes.

Have you even looked at Glendale's ridiculous statements about the losses the city would incur? There isn't any there, there. It's just a bunch of blanket statements about how awful things would be with nothing to back any of this up.

You have an incredible amount of trust in a city government. Trust that I don't think you would have on any other issue.

As TGF indicates, look at what they say they will lose. It is in the bankruptcy court documents which, for some odd reason, do not actually tie to the other numbers they are presenting when trying to sell how much the parking is worth. Also, half the losses are form non hockey events. Also, the numbers themselves do not even total to $500 mil and if I remember correctly I am not sure they even discounted them to present day value.

Lastly, it is a guess. The sold everyone on the arena years ago by how much they were going to get in parking and rent etc. Those estimates have not panned out very well.

 

[Fugu]

Clearly the City of Glendale knows more than anyone else what the situation is. You think they would be fighting this hard if losing the team didn't matter to the overall health of the city and its plans for the Westgate development? I'll trust the city with all the data, analysts and economists over the educated guess of a fan that they *might* be exaggerating their claims

That isn't clear at all. They may have all the information but it doesn't mean that they're not in over their heads.

You of course are free to trust whomever you choose to trust. For my part, Beasley's flippant assessment of a $500MM loss to be mitigated by a $100 MM bond sale left out a heck of a lot relevant information as to the REAL cost of the deal. Why would he claim the city was only on the hook for $100 MM when any casual observer can figure out there's debt financing, the mgt fee, and revenues from the arena for non-hockey events?

Could it be that he too has an AGENDA?



I am open to any set of figures you can find that show the total outlay for COG and the claims of losses if the team left. (We've already punched holes that an aircraft carrier could clear through those figures, but we have nothing better to do apparently.)

 

[seanlinden]

They believe it is illegal, therefore they have informed COG that they plan to challenge the legality. COG has the ball in their court. I keep saying this, but if they were absolutely certain, they should just move ahead. Maybe they aren't certain.

You also cannot claim that government officials always act in a way that is best for the people, can you? I'm fascinated by the number of times public officials end up in cushy jobs with the private companies who courted the government's favors whilst these guys were in office. Or what about the civil servants? Are they beyond reproach in all regards? Maybe. Maybe not.

COG left themselves open to this and no amount of kvetching about motives, agendas, politics and democracy is going to change the wording of the constitution and that it's being used against them.

It's illegal for them to do so -- it's called tortious interference and puts them liable for any damages that them interfering with the transaction causes. The "ball" is certainly not in the City's court by any stretch of the imagination, as Goldwater has basically screwed over the taxpayers, with the only hope of them getting damages out of Goldwater (who I suspect has very few assets).

I can absolutely claim that government officials are in place to act in the best interest of the people. Their actions are certainly not beyond reproach, and must report to the superior levels of government aswell as the citizens who elected them. That doesn't include 3rd parties trying to stop decisions made by government because they don't like it.

 

[Fugu]

I think they do. You can take most of what's written on any Canadian board to the streets of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and continue the conversation with the average sports fan that you meet.

I don't think you could do the same between what's being said on an American board.

Keep in mind our sports stations start their highlights with Hockey, and dedicate a majority of their sports news to hockey related talk. In the USA, ESPN barely even inputs the scores and good luck seeing any highlights.

You just can't compare the situation here compared to there. I've lived in both countries, I've seen it first hand

I can buy John Shannon's (iirc) portrayal of hockey fans as tribal. They are fans of their teams for the most part, not of the sport. That seems to be supported in nontraditional markets when you see the Hawks, Wings, Rangers, B's, Leaf's, etc., fans come out to cheer their team but fail to support the local hockey team. I personally would go to hockey games of whichever team's market I'd happen to land in if I had to move, but would follow my original team nevertheless. Fans on a hockey message board are the most hard core you can find so hardly at all representative of the fan base in general.

Cult implies something else altogether. Take Detroit as an example. The ratings for the Wings and avg ticket price here far exceeds that of the NBA pistons. That's why I don't buy into the cult label. Hockey is a part of the social fabric in Michigan, played at all levels with teams at all levels supported here (OHL, NCAA, USHL, NHL, AHL, and all the kiddie stuff to boot). That's not a cult. That's daily life.

 

[Fourier]

That isn't clear at all. They may have all the information but it doesn't mean that they're not in over their heads.

You of course are free to trust whomever you choose to trust. For my part, Beasley's flippant assessment of a $500MM loss to be mitigated by a $100 MM bond sale left out a heck of a lot relevant information as to the REAL cost of the deal. Why would he claim the city was only on the hook for $100 MM when any casual observer can figure out there's debt financing, the mgt fee, and revenues from the arena for non-hockey events?

Could it be that he too has an AGENDA?



I am open to any set of figures you can find that show the total outlay for COG and the claims of losses if the team left. (We've already punched holes that an aircraft carrier could clear through those figures, but we have nothing better to do apparently.)

I agree on the AGENDA point. These sorts of contracted studies are always that way. It does not matter which side you are on the numbers seem to always support your position. This is why you can never trust those math types!

 

[Fugu]

It's illegal for them to do so -- it's called tortious interference and puts them liable for any damages that them interfering with the transaction causes. The "ball" is certainly not in the City's court by any stretch of the imagination, as Goldwater has basically screwed over the taxpayers, with the only hope of them getting damages out of Goldwater (who I suspect has very few assets).

And Casual Fan is in danger of giving up his lucrative law practice to become a bead seller at SFO if Glendale feels they have a case for tortious interference. I know how expensive it is to live the Bay Area, so I'm going to guess he's good at what he does.

I don't think much of all that conservative junk that people always try to mix in with government and limiting people's personal freedoms, but I do not like excessive government spending for private ventures.. It will be a very cold day in a hot place before someone convinces me that government should be routinely subsidizing or "gifting" private enterprises. Even socialism is about government direct spending and ownership, not being in bed with capitalists and how to get public monies into private pockets.

You will have a hard time convincing me that public money should be used for this stated purpose. I wouldn't have supported the arena construction either--- there, or in Edmonton, Detroit, LA...... you name it.

So, no, supporting an allegedly illegal act to somehow save taxpayers is a nonstarter. Had they been protected right from the outset, maybe their govt wouldn't be in this mess today.

I can absolutely claim that government officials are in place to act in the best interest of the people. Their actions are certainly not beyond reproach, and must report to the superior levels of government aswell as the citizens who elected them. That doesn't include 3rd parties trying to stop decisions made by government because they don't like it.

That's an absurd claim unless you're discussing ideals. Sure, the "government" is there for the people, by the people, and of people, blah, blah blah..... but yeah, too many of them have very nice jobs waiting for them in the private sector once their days in the public sector are over. I'm too much of a cynic for you to convince me that elected officials are all about altruism and never look out for number one. Suuuuuure they are.

 

[Fugu]

I agree on the AGENDA point. These sorts of contracted studies are always that way. It does not matter which side you are on the numbers seem to always support your position. This is why you can never trust those math types!

The beauty about pure math is that you can't fudge or slant the outcome. There may be a couple ways to work through a proof, but it has to resolve no matter who else comes along and repeats the exercise.

Economic studies are in the hands of people who cannot get their X and Y axes in the right place! (Ha, nerd joke.) It's all about the assumptions you make, and how many of them you make. I'm sure if I had the full "economic" study in front of me, I could come up with ten scenarios as options. Which one is right then?

 

[Fourier]

The beauty about pure math is that you can't fudge or slant the outcome. There may be a couple ways to work through a proof, but it has to resolve no matter who else comes along and repeats the exercise.

Music to my ears!

Economic studies are in the hands of people who cannot get their X and Y axes in the right place! (Ha, nerd joke.) It's all about the assumptions you make, and how many of them you make. I'm sure if I had the full "economic" study in front of me, I could come up with ten scenarios as options. Which one is right then?

I remember taking a grad course in econometrics. As part of the course we were suppose to design a model that would resolve a particular set of data. The shocking thing to me was the belief amongst most of the econ grad students that it was more important to get the numbers to work out (ie to fit the data) than it was to have a reasoned argument in support of the evidence you derived. Blind interpolation with enough parameters to make it look pretty.

It was also clear that if you wanted the outcome to be a certain way one could make it happen.

I still have not seen a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal that does notgenerally put subsidies to sports teams at best at the break even level. That is not the same thing as saying that there is no reason to try and keep a team like the Yotes in Glendale. I am a big believer in the intangible value of sports teams to a community. And in specific cases it is even possible that there is a modest net economic gain. But I have always been a skeptic of the claim that this effort was to avoid massive losses for the CoG.

 

[CGG]

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.

And that band aid, as you call it, could very well cause the bleeding pig to bleed more over the long run.

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.

They can afford to lose the franchise. The arena wouldn't have to sit dormant either. But, while this could very well be the better option in terms of money, Scruggy and the incumbents on council will absolutely not let the team leave because their jobs are basically at risk. That's what you aren't getting - the COG isn't doing this because they think it is the most prudent financial decision, the only motive is to save their jobs. They basically kick the can down the road hoping people will forget come re-election time. The more responsible thing to do may very well be to pull the plug, save the town a bunch of money, not get downgraded, and agressively pursue plan B for the arena. That won't go over so well in the next election if the arena starts collecting cobwebs though.

"illegal" and "best interest" are two wildly independent things. Even if it was illegal, that doesn't neccessarily mean it's not within the taxpayers best interests.

You can't be serious. You know what else would be in the taxpayer's best interest? Knocking over a Brinks truck. Why doesn't the city just do that if they apparently don't have to obey the laws of the state they're part of?

As I said above, the time to debate the wisdom of this deal from the City's perspective is long gone. If Goldwater was acting in the best interest of the taxpayers, they would have exercized democratic dissent in December, and then accepted the decision of the CoG whichever way it went. Alternatively, if they felt the taxpayers best interest was not being served by the City Council, then they should push for impeachment.

So the only remedy when the city does something illegal is to try to impeach the mayor or wait 4 years and vote for the other guy?

Goldwater has said all along, dating back to the Reinsdorf CFD days, that the city can't put a subsidy in the pocket of an owner. The COG knew all along that Goldwater was watching and would intervene if they smelled a subsidy, but they decided to ignore and "play" with them. It appears the threat of legal action is the only thing that might actually put a stop to it.

It's illegal for them to do so -- it's called tortious interference and puts them liable for any damages that them interfering with the transaction causes. The "ball" is certainly not in the City's court by any stretch of the imagination, as Goldwater has basically screwed over the taxpayers, with the only hope of them getting damages out of Goldwater (who I suspect has very few assets).

We've heard this before. There will be no lawsuit for tortious interference. The city's easiest remedy, if they're so hard done by, is to go to court and get a declatory judgement. There you go, game over Goldwater. That they haven't done so speaks volumes. Maybe the city thinks or knows their deal smells bad. Or maybe they just don't want to actually close the deal.

(Before we get into the tangent about how a municipality suing a non-profit organization has bad optics, it seems strange that the city would prefer to allow this crazed organization to dictate policy on this and who knows what else going forward. How's that for optics?)

I can absolutely claim that government officials are in place to act in the best interest of the people. Their actions are certainly not beyond reproach, and must report to the superior levels of government aswell as the citizens who elected them. That doesn't include 3rd parties trying to stop decisions made by government because they don't like it.

Seems they're not paying attention to the superior levels of government if what they're doing violates the state constitution.

And the 3rd party that is Goldwater would bring a suit against the city in the name of one of the citizens of Glendale that elected said government. Therefore, the city would have to answer to its citizens, not this 3rd party.

Secondly, this is a business transaction for the people. Governments absolutely have to concern themselves with profit and loss, or in government terms, surplus and deficit. There's nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. Goldwater is trying to argue that it isn't a subsidy, rather a gift.

Hmmmmm. You might want to check the Arizona constitution, which seems to disagree with the notion that there is nothing legally wrong with giving a business a subsidy. If that wasn't illegal the deal would have closed months or years ago. Instead the COG has come up with all sorts of creative ways to try to disguise the subsidy as something else, the latest of course is to say it's not a subsidy, we're buying the parking rights. Sure.

 

[Whileee]

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.

I am not a lawyer, but I would have thought that the chin-wag between the GWI, the COG and Hulsizer, with everyone's attorney present, would have been the ideal time to clearly articulate the ownership of the parking rights, and how they are conveyed. That has been a central question to the legal challenges. Instead, we are left with as muddy picture as before. If the rights to 5500 parking spaces have been conveyed to the NHL, or could be easily through assumption of previous agreements, then it should be simple enough for lawyers that have looked at these agreements for months to point to the specific documents and the relevant clauses to settle this once and for all. By the way, the financial assumptions for the parking revenue was based on up to about 6500 parking spots, not just 5500. So that would need to be articulated in any clarification about the parking rights.

 

[Koss]

When a company looks for investors, it does indeed disclose its business plan, as well as other caveats that will convince people to dig deep.

But in this case, the investor is the City of Glendale. They may be using money levied from taxpayers/people who purchased bonds, but as soon as they paid, the money became the CoG's, who are able to spend it to their discretion (within obvious limits).

Hulsizer has convinced CoG. He has no reason to tell anyone else whatever his business plan may be (or if it even exists).

So your argument is that it inst public money used for the investment it's the City of Glendle's

 

[seanlinden]

You can't be serious. You know what else would be in the taxpayer's best interest? Knocking over a Brinks truck. Why doesn't the city just do that if they apparently don't have to obey the laws of the state they're part of?

So the only remedy when the city does something illegal is to try to impeach the mayor or wait 4 years and vote for the other guy?

Goldwater has said all along, dating back to the Reinsdorf CFD days, that the city can't put a subsidy in the pocket of an owner. The COG knew all along that Goldwater was watching and would intervene if they smelled a subsidy, but they decided to ignore and "play" with them. It appears the threat of legal action is the only thing that might actually put a stop to it.


We've heard this before. There will be no lawsuit for tortious interference. The city's easiest remedy, if they're so hard done by, is to go to court and get a declatory judgement. There you go, game over Goldwater. That they haven't done so speaks volumes. Maybe the city thinks or knows their deal smells bad. Or maybe they just don't want to actually close the deal.

(Before we get into the tangent about how a municipality suing a non-profit organization has bad optics, it seems strange that the city would prefer to allow this crazed organization to dictate policy on this and who knows what else going forward. How's that for optics?)


Seems they're not paying attention to the superior levels of government if what they're doing violates the state constitution.

And the 3rd party that is Goldwater would bring a suit against the city in the name of one of the citizens of Glendale that elected said government. Therefore, the city would have to answer to its citizens, not this 3rd party.

If it is illegal, the government of Arizona has a responsibility to enforce it.

Goldwater has been very clear that they don't like the idea of subsidizing the operation, that doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how government is run. There were millions of americans who didn't vote for Barack Obama, that doesn't give them the right to sue every time he tries to do something.

The City simply doesn't have time to go to court and still keep the team. They'll have to pursue damages after the fact.

 

[CGG]

If it is illegal, the government of Arizona has a responsibility to enforce it.

Goldwater has been very clear that they don't like the idea of subsidizing the operation, that doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how government is run. There were millions of americans who didn't vote for Barack Obama, that doesn't give them the right to sue every time he tries to do something.

The City simply doesn't have time to go to court and still keep the team. They'll have to pursue damages after the fact.

The city doesn't have time? They've spent the past 4 months sitting around doing nothing while the deal has remained un-closed. Seems the wisest use of time would have been to get a judge to say yes, the deal is perfectly legit. Then the deal could have closed. So why didn't they do it?

 

[mrCoffea*]

I can buy John Shannon's (iirc) portrayal of hockey fans as tribal. They are fans of their teams for the most part, not of the sport. That seems to be supported in nontraditional markets when you see the Hawks, Wings, Rangers, B's, Leaf's, etc., fans come out to cheer their team but fail to support the local hockey team. I personally would go to hockey games of whichever team's market I'd happen to land in if I had to move, but would follow my original team nevertheless. Fans on a hockey message board are the most hard core you can find so hardly at all representative of the fan base in general.

Cult implies something else altogether. Take Detroit as an example. The ratings for the Wings and avg ticket price here far exceeds that of the NBA pistons. That's why I don't buy into the cult label. Hockey is a part of the social fabric in Michigan, played at all levels with teams at all levels supported here (OHL, NCAA, USHL, NHL, AHL, and all the kiddie stuff to boot). That's not a cult. That's daily life.

Yes, the daily life of one specific state. Unfortunately for hockey, the United States has 49 other states in its union. Yes it is part of daily life in some places, but in the vast majority of places, it unfortunately has cult status. As mainstream as a cult status can be, given the the fact that the NHL is still considered by most to be a major league, but a cult status none the less. The trends are shifting away from that, and the NHL can easily becomes more popular amongst even casual fans in the states, but it requires developing the sport in places such as Phoenix; large metropolitan areas with a rich sport tradition.

That's what Bettman's trying to do, and like Colangelo said, it's an uphill battle, but the more the NHL perseveres, the more popular will get. Putting a team in Winnipeg is a step backwards in that regard, and that's why the NHL is fighting hard to keep the team in Phoenix.

 

[Whileee]

If it is illegal, the government of Arizona has a responsibility to enforce it.

Goldwater has been very clear that they don't like the idea of subsidizing the operation, that doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how government is run. There were millions of americans who didn't vote for Barack Obama, that doesn't give them the right to sue every time he tries to do something.

The City simply doesn't have time to go to court and still keep the team. They'll have to pursue damages after the fact.

This is very hard to believe. The GWI sent a letter to bond agencies at the end of January indicating their intention to sue. Even if it took a month for the COG to appreciated the "chill" that might have had on the market, they have had another 2 full months to seek a legal remedy to eliminate the GWI threat through a declarative judgment, or even a suit for tortious interference. That they have not done so certainly does not convey confidence in their legal position.

If their legal strategy is to sue the GWI after the fact for damages, I am sure that they are aware that the potential yield would be far less than the $500 million in economic loss they claim would follow from a loss of the Coyotes. In that case, it would be purely vindictive to punish the GWI. If that is their thinking, then it is hard to see how that is in the best interests of Glendale citizens. Therefore, I think it is very unlikely that they would bring any legal action should the Coyotes relocate.