Phoenix XXXVI - There's got to be a morning after

[Whileee]

Respectfully, please explain to me how it is you believe Ellman retained rights that had vested with the tenant to charge for parking, such that he could assign those rights (if that is how you indeed interpret the Jan. 25th agreement) to the City when the rights to charge had already been vested with the tenant during later transactions.

Of course, we agree that you can only assign those rights you currently have. How, then, did the right to charge for parking revert back to Ellman on Jan. 25th such that he could assign those rights?

I submit they did not, and you are misreading the Jan. 25th agreement which in fact is really a land swap and addresses rights under a parking garage that was never built.

The path to the parking rights remains clear, and the Jan. 25th agreement did not alter the right to charge for parking, which remains in the Moyes Estate, subject to assumption by the NHL, which rights convey to the new owner MH, who will now sell those rights for a reported $50M.

It seems clear to you, and to GSC, but not to CasualFan and the GWI lawyers, and when the COG's lawyer (Tindall) was asked to clarify the documentary evidence vis-a-vis the parking rights he steadfastly refused to answer. As I recall, he even when so far as to advise the GWI to "take it to the judge", rather than provide clarity on the point when given the opportunity. That is a puzzling approach to take when the COG is trying to sell the deal to the public.

 

[cbcwpg]

I'm new to all this, but wasn't Jim Balsillie's original offer for something like $250 million with $50 million going to Glendale?

So the COG is now out $75 million.

http://www.faceoff.com/story.html?id=a82c6283-616a-450d-a498-f786d9ed598d

In documents filed in a U.S. bankruptcy court Monday evening, lawyers for the co-CEO of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion said his group -- PSE Sports and Entertainment -- will offer up to $50 million (all figures US) to the city of Glendale, Ariz., as part of an amended bid for the team. PSE would then reduce its original $212.5 million bid by $20 million. The end result is an offer worth up to $242.5 million, but is still contingent on the ability to move the franchise to Hamilton


Someone posted on here at one time that if the CoG had taken the $50M and invested it properly, they might have been able to make enough money to be equal to the lease payments they were getting from the hockey team. Not sure, but its an interesting issue anyway.

 

[PitbulI]

I too agree with cbcwpg. Perhaps it's the fact that while legal speak has gone back and forth, it's side stepping the real issue. A town that's wanting to use taxpayer money to help a private entity to purchase a item and a league that is obsessed with a southern expansion that has not worked everywhere but refuse to do what's best for the league at this time.

 

[CasualFan]

Beyond that, it stuns me how you seem to be so sucked in by the GWI's empty rhetoric on this issue.

I place no emphasis on anything Goldwater says. I base my opinion on the agreements.

As I inferred above but will make more clear so there is no misunderstanding, we have two options: Dranius is completely incompetent with respect to the interpretation of commercial agreements (no comment on his competency on other legal areas), or he understands the provisions and is flat out lying.

Actually there is a 3rd option: Dranius is correct and you simply attempt to brand anyone who disagrees with your assessments as incompetent or dishonest. The only way we are limited to two options is if we start with the assumption that everything you offer is indisputable fact. I'm not prepared to make that leap.

I find it interesting that you are rooting for this to turn into a legal case. It's funny, because what I am hoping for is a DEAL, not because I have any rooting interest in PHO staying, but because deals are what I do. The reason why I chose commercial law over litigation is because philosophically speaking the former is constructive and allows both parties to win if done the right way, while the latter is destructive and precludes that possibility. To me, the latter is evidence of failure or breakdown of the former. I can't get excited about rooting for a failure of the constructive end of the commercial process.

I respect your personal philosophy as I would anyone's and I'm not oblivious to frivolous torts. However, litigation is often the only recourse to correct an injustice. I find that litigation is only destructive for the guilty.

Respectfully, please explain to me how it is you believe Ellman retained rights that had vested with the tenant to charge for parking, such that he could assign those rights (if that is how you indeed interpret the Jan. 25th agreement) to the City when the rights to charge had already been vested with the tenant during later transactions.

However, nothing in the amended MUDA assigns those rights from Ellman to the City.

The amended MUDA of Jan 25, 2011 acknowledges the right to obtain revenue from parking at Arena Events belongs to the City. Are you suggesting that Coyote Center Development did not possess the parking rights to begin with or that language exists that the Team or Arena Manager possess anything more than a guarantee from CCD that parking spaces will be available during Arena Events?

Philosophically, the world would be a better place without lawyers.

OBJECT!

 

[Dado]

It seems clear to you, and to GSC, but not to CasualFan and the GWI lawyers...

Events have clearly shown CF and GWI are on the reality-based side of the argument.

After that, it's all just pedantics, we may as well be arguing over "they're" or "their" with a grammarian.

 

[JetFan4Ever]

I guess Priests can be lawyers.

Just to be clear, I never said I didn't like lawyers or that they were not needed. It's a little trick I've picked up from GSC. Philosophically, if people all just got along and never disagreed, we would not need lawyers, so the world would be a better place.

 

[Howler Scores]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...-of-coyotes-saga-could-be-near-121305474.html

"Well, the bottom line for us is that the money flowing from the city cannot be grossly disproportionate to the money flowing back (1). If the NHL provides seller financing by cutting its price substantially and/or spreading purchase payments over the term of the lease (2), if the city cuts its contribution substantially (3), if the management fee is reduced to cover primarily operating expenses that would otherwise be born by the city (4), and if Hulsizer guarantees revenue flows to the city backed by something more than a promise from a shell entity (5), then it is conceivable the deal could pass constitutional muster," Dranias told the Free Press in an email. "I'm not holding my breath because if they had a deal that was constitutional, I think they would have shared it with us already."

After giving it some time and thought, and granted I am not as intelligent as one would hope in breaking down his statement, I viewed 5 issues in his statement. So I am throwing out 4.5 solutions (stuck on number 4):

1. I think a $50 million bond will reflect a better chance to receive the same amount in parking revenue/sponsorship (107,919,089.60 would be the total cost with 6% interest and paying the $25 million with the $50 million should give full revenue rights to Glendale).
2. I think this is solved by the $25 million payment which came out of a Enterprise Fee account (similar to what Mesa did for the Cubs and Mesa has not been challenged by GWI).
3. The City is now essentially paying $25 million less than the original $100 million bond idea (not including the interest that the bond would have generated in payments). I suspect this will involve the NHL getting payments over time instead of a lump sum.
4. Not sure about this one but I suspect cupcakes could fix the issue.
5. This is more legal speak so I am not sure how to avoid it but is tax dollars really at stake? Sure any business venture could fail. One example is Scottsdale going with the auto dealerships instead of the Coyotes Arena. Most of those dealerships went under in 2008-2009 and less tax revenue is collected as a result. There is a difference between chance and risk and this is risk (a calculated one at that). Mesa issued a $80 + million bond for the Cubs in hopes of receiving equal value back over the long run. GWI is not challenging that so I say go for it Glendale.

To me, they (GWI) are starting to set themselves up so they can say “we worked with them for this new deal by saying what they can’t do” (thus they can claim victory like they did in the CityNorth case). In all reality, these are ideas that have already leaked out into the press so GWI is just taking each idea and claiming them as their own so the true victor is people tired of hearing about gold and water in the same sentence...IMO

 

[goyotes]

I place no emphasis on anything Goldwater says. I base my opinion on the agreements.



Actually there is a 3rd option: Dranius is correct and you simply attempt to brand anyone who disagrees with your assessments as incompetent or dishonest. The only way we are limited to two options is if we start with the assumption that everything you offer is indisputable fact. I'm not prepared to make that leap.




I respect your personal philosophy as I would anyone's and I'm not oblivious to frivolous torts. However, litigation is often the only recourse to correct an injustice. I find that litigation is only destructive for the guilty.





The amended MUDA of Jan 25, 2011 acknowledges the right to obtain revenue from parking at Arena Events belongs to the City. Are you suggesting that Coyote Center Development did not possess the parking rights to begin with or that language exists that the Team or Arena Manager possess anything more than a guarantee from CCD that parking spaces will be available during Arena Events?




OBJECT!

What I am suggesting is that whatever rights were created in the MUDA that at one time belonged to Ellman had long ago been vested in Moyes as owner of the team based upon later agreements, all of which predate the Jan. 25th agreement.

I can't assign rights I "once" had, but gave away to someone else years ago.

I would also suggest in option 3 you have neglected to include on the pro side lawyers for the CoG, bond company, NHL and MH. At least 4 sets of lawyers on the pro side have blessed this deal. GWI stands alone in opposition.

 

[goyotes]

Events have clearly shown CF and GWI are on the reality-based side of the argument.

After that, it's all just pedantics, we may as well be arguing over "they're" or "their" with a grammarian.

Please explain exactly what events have shown that CF and the GWI "are on the reality-based side of the argument."

I believe I have equally dealt in reality. I would submit your observation is driven by a result you desire, just as the GWI's ideological arguments stretch beyond reason the Gift Clause.

The only thing that is true about this situation is that both sides have presented "arguments". Neither side is the arbiter of the truth. If, and when, this goes to court, we may actually get an answer as to whose reality comports with "real-reality."

 

[Mungman]

Actually there is a 3rd option: Dranius is correct and you simply attempt to brand anyone who disagrees with your assessments as incompetent or dishonest. The only way we are limited to two options is if we start with the assumption that everything you offer is indisputable fact. I'm not prepared to make that leap.




I respect your personal philosophy as I would anyone's and I'm not oblivious to frivolous torts. However, litigation is often the only recourse to correct an injustice. I find that litigation is only destructive for the guilty.

The first paragraph = BINGO! There are always more options when you keep the ability to view a situation from someone elses shoes. Some find that difficult and benefit from surrounding themselves with a team of people with abilities they do not possess, the trick is not to piss thos people off so much you end up ostracising yourself into a corner talking to yourself.

On the second, yes deals do allow for win-win (or win-save face), in this case there is so much grey area with the gift-clause in play in this case and for the forseeable future (barring changing the constitution IMO) then it is up to the courts to define the terms it will apply under at this point. So unless CoG is going to refer this to the courts (and I hope they do, I feel the need to go to SFO for a visit and to pick SOMETHING up for the kids on the way back) it is up to GWI to force the issue (which one way or the other in the big picture would not be a bad thing, in the small picture it would SUCK big time for CoG).

 

[goyotes]

It seems clear to you, and to GSC, but not to CasualFan and the GWI lawyers, and when the COG's lawyer (Tindall) was asked to clarify the documentary evidence vis-a-vis the parking rights he steadfastly refused to answer. As I recall, he even when so far as to advise the GWI to "take it to the judge", rather than provide clarity on the point when given the opportunity. That is a puzzling approach to take when the COG is trying to sell the deal to the public.

The take it to the judge comment was related only to a discovery dispute. MH's lawyer attempted to explain, but the GWI would have nothing of it and quickly changed the subject. Listen to the audio again. I think you will agree.

 

[borno87]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...-of-coyotes-saga-could-be-near-121305474.html


1. I think a $50 million bond will reflect a better chance to receive the same amount in parking revenue/sponsorship (107,919,089.60 would be the total cost with 6% interest and paying the $25 million with the $50 million should give full revenue rights to Glendale).

This would be true if the issue at this point remained the value of the parking revenue. However it appears that thei issue is centered around ownership of the parking revenue rights as a whole. Paying $50M for something you already own would probably be considered "grossly disproportionate" by GWI.

There is clearly a disagreement on the BOH over who does own the parking revenue rights, with CF falling on one side and GSC/goyotes on the other. I'm no lawyer and have not analyzed the AMULA or MUDA so I can't really speak to this dispute however the fact that a disagreement exists between the more qualified posters in regards to this issue does not bode well for the COG's ability to side step GWI by simply reducing the bond amount.

2. I think this is solved by the $25 million payment which came out of a Enterprise Fee account (similar to what Mesa did for the Cubs and Mesa has not been challenged by GWI).

GWI not suing over the Cubs/Mesa agreement does not disqualify them from taking action in the COG/Coyotes agreement. That is not an argument that would be valid in court, nor is it one that I have seen any of the legally minded posters on the board hang their hat either.

3. The City is now essentially paying $25 million less than the original $100 million bond idea (not including the interest that the bond would have generated in payments). I suspect this will involve the NHL getting payments over time instead of a lump sum.

Again, it appears that the issue at this point is whether the City can legally pay $1 for the parking rights, never mind $50M, $75M or $100M. Reducing the amount does not impact the key issue of ownership over the revenue stream.

It's pretty clear that the parking revenue (which to date has been worth exactly $0.00) was the loophole the COG was attempting to use to subsidize MH for the purchase of the team. I don't blame the COG for doing everything in their power to try and keep the Coyotes at Jobing.com, I would expect the same of my local government to save any time that I was a fan of. However it appears the COG has badly mishandled this transaction, and have no one to blame but themselves for being in this situation. The GWI did not come out of nowhere, they have been sniffing around Glendale since the beginning of the BK and COG's inability to complete the deal knowing of GWI's presence says a lot about their own competence and legal wherewithal.

5. This is more legal speak so I am not sure how to avoid it but is tax dollars really at stake? Sure any business venture could fail. One example is Scottsdale going with the auto dealerships instead of the Coyotes Arena. Most of those dealerships went under in 2008-2009 and less tax revenue is collected as a result. There is a difference between chance and risk and this is risk (a calculated one at that). Mesa issued a $80 + million bond for the Cubs in hopes of receiving equal value back over the long run. GWI is not challenging that so I say go for it Glendale.

I already addressed the irrelevance of the Mesa comparison. From practical perspective looking at why GWI never challenged the Mesa deal makes sense, however when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road it won't matter.

And yes Tax dollars are at stake, as the parking bonds were backed by Glendale Excise tax revenues.

To me, they (GWI) are starting to set themselves up so they can say “we worked with them for this new deal by saying what they can’t do†(thus they can claim victory like they did in the CityNorth case). In all reality, these are ideas that have already leaked out into the press so GWI is just taking each idea and claiming them as their own so the true victor is people tired of hearing about gold and water in the same sentence...IMO

That is the best case scenario for GWI. However at this point they are too far entrenched to back away....

 

[Fugu]

http://www.faceoff.com/story.html?id=a82c6283-616a-450d-a498-f786d9ed598d

In documents filed in a U.S. bankruptcy court Monday evening, lawyers for the co-CEO of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion said his group -- PSE Sports and Entertainment -- will offer up to $50 million (all figures US) to the city of Glendale, Ariz., as part of an amended bid for the team. PSE would then reduce its original $212.5 million bid by $20 million. The end result is an offer worth up to $242.5 million, but is still contingent on the ability to move the franchise to Hamilton


Someone posted on here at one time that if the CoG had taken the $50M and invested it properly, they might have been able to make enough money to be equal to the lease payments they were getting from the hockey team. Not sure, but its an interesting issue anyway.

I believe Balsillie ultimately amended that simply to get Glendale's backing in court. Thus the city would have received $25MM regardless, and another $25 MM if the relo was approved. I don't have time to dig it up but I know the offer was changed at least 1-2 times.

The first paragraph = BINGO! There are always more options when you keep the ability to view a situation from someone elses shoes. Some find that difficult and benefit from surrounding themselves with a team of people with abilities they do not possess, the trick is not to piss thos people off so much you end up ostracising yourself into a corner talking to yourself.

On the second, yes deals do allow for win-win (or win-save face), in this case there is so much grey area with the gift-clause in play in this case and for the forseeable future (barring changing the constitution IMO) then it is up to the courts to define the terms it will apply under at this point. So unless CoG is going to refer this to the courts (and I hope they do, I feel the need to go to SFO for a visit and to pick SOMETHING up for the kids on the way back) it is up to GWI to force the issue (which one way or the other in the big picture would not be a bad thing, in the small picture it would SUCK big time for CoG).

I tend to like dealing with probabilities more than gambling, but I would wager that there is no chance whatsoever that CF ends up selling beads at SFO.

 

[Killion]

As I mentioned to you in my previous post on this subject, there is no assignment language in this agreement. Absent any assignment language, there is nothing going from Ellman to COG, except an acknowledgement that COG is going to exploit those parking rights. In order to get that consent, they still have to get the parking rights from the team owner. That is still what they are acquiring from the team, and that is what is worth all the money.....Dranius is completely incompetent with respect to the interpretation of commercial agreements (no comment on his competency on other legal areas), or he understands the provisions and is flat out lying.....There is nothing wrong with the put option.

Very interesting GSC. If indeed there isnt any assignment language in the agreement (and I'd surely hope Dranius is simply misinterpreting rather than lying about it) then clearly any argument that their is would be fairly quickly dispensed with in court. However, why then didnt' Tindall simply exercise some patience and restraint in taking the time at the Cupcake Summit to clarify the matter when questioned about it?. Instead, he seemed to prevaricate & challenge (take it to the Judge). Put into context, I can appreciate that his patience was obviously running thin, and its more than likely had he attempted to amicably explain the terms of the January 25th Agreement, it wouldve fallen on deaf ears regardless. So, if a legal "mis-step" didnt actually occur, and the path to the COG in acquiring the parking rights from the leaseholder is still free & clear, then I fail to understand why the COG hasnt simply sought a declarative judgment in respect to this & other GW complaints, stopped *****footing around and playing into the institutes hands. I just dont get it, as its been more than abundantly clear for some time that dealing with the GWI's concerns are quite impossible....

 

[Fugu]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sp...-of-coyotes-saga-could-be-near-121305474.html

After giving it some time and thought, and granted I am not as intelligent as one would hope in breaking down his statement, I viewed 5 issues in his statement. So I am throwing out 4.5 solutions (stuck on number 4):

1. I think a $50 million bond will reflect a better chance to receive the same amount in parking revenue/sponsorship (107,919,089.60 would be the total cost with 6% interest and paying the $25 million with the $50 million should give full revenue rights to Glendale).
2. I think this is solved by the $25 million payment which came out of a Enterprise Fee account (similar to what Mesa did for the Cubs and Mesa has not been challenged by GWI).
3. The City is now essentially paying $25 million less than the original $100 million bond idea (not including the interest that the bond would have generated in payments). I suspect this will involve the NHL getting payments over time instead of a lump sum.
4. Not sure about this one but I suspect cupcakes could fix the issue.
5. This is more legal speak so I am not sure how to avoid it but is tax dollars really at stake? Sure any business venture could fail. One example is Scottsdale going with the auto dealerships instead of the Coyotes Arena. Most of those dealerships went under in 2008-2009 and less tax revenue is collected as a result. There is a difference between chance and risk and this is risk (a calculated one at that). Mesa issued a $80 + million bond for the Cubs in hopes of receiving equal value back over the long run. GWI is not challenging that so I say go for it Glendale.

To me, they (GWI) are starting to set themselves up so they can say “we worked with them for this new deal by saying what they can’t do†(thus they can claim victory like they did in the CityNorth case). In all reality, these are ideas that have already leaked out into the press so GWI is just taking each idea and claiming them as their own so the true victor is people tired of hearing about gold and water in the same sentence...IMO

borno87 does a nice job of addressing the points you raise, so hopefully that part of the discussion is picked up.

I wanted to address the section in bold. Obviously, you have a right to your opinion, but allow me to play devil's advocate. (The angel has the gathered up some of the others, apparently. )


Is it possible that GWI, in reality, is concerned with the constitution? Their motives for this concern notwithstanding, but the fact that there is a constitutional cause which they can 'exploit' often seems overlooked. What if they really don't want to see taxpayers taking on undue risk because government and business are at times too cozy?

Question being, one is a primary consideration for them, and the other might be secondary. Do you think they are more concerned with prevailing on the constitutional clause they reference or getting public credit for the specifics of a deal that may pass the muster?

 

[CasualFan]

What I am suggesting is that whatever rights were created in the MUDA that at one time belonged to Ellman had long ago been vested in Moyes as owner of the team based upon later agreements, all of which predate the Jan. 25th agreement.

I can't assign rights I "once" had, but gave away to someone else years ago.

I would also suggest in option 3 you have neglected to include on the pro side lawyers for the CoG, bond company, NHL and MH. At least 4 sets of lawyers on the pro side have blessed this deal. GWI stands alone in opposition.

I do not find any language in the agreements with Moyes' Team and Arena Management entities that they were long ago vested with revenue rights to parking. What I find is a guarantee to the Team and Arena Manager that parking will be available and an Amended MUDA that clearly states the rights to revenue generated from those spots belongs to the City. If I am mistaken, I will gladly retract and acknowledge my error.

Regarding the legal opinions, they all started with an assumption of accuracy regarding the City's position. If I just assume the City is correct, I would arrive at the same opinion.

 

[goyotes]

borno87 does a nice job of addressing the points you raise, so hopefully that part of the discussion is picked up.

I wanted to address the section in bold. Obviously, you have a right to your opinion, but allow me to play devil's advocate. (The angel has the gathered up some of the others, apparently. )


Is it possible that GWI, in reality, is concerned with the constitution? Their motives for this concern notwithstanding, but the fact that there is a constitutional cause which they can 'exploit' often seems overlooked. What if they really don't want to see taxpayers taking on undue risk because government and business are at times too cozy?

Question being, one is a primary consideration for them, and the other might be secondary. Do you think they are more concerned with prevailing on the constitutional clause they reference or getting public credit for the specifics of a deal that may pass the muster?

I know this wasn't directed to me, so excuse me for butting in.

I do think that the GWI are "true believers" and that that operate to advance a cause. Part of that is to protect the constitution. I think, based upon their recent behavior and hounding for every PR opportunity that arises, that it is fair to question whether their motives are as pure as the driven snow. Having said that, and while no fan of their particular polictical flavor, I do think they believe in their case and their cause.

I would not begrudge them from submitting their arguments to a court for decision. I do begrudge their effective, yet questionable in my opinion, tactics.

 

[goyotes]

I do not find any language in the agreements with Moyes' Team and Arena Management entities that they were long ago vested with revenue rights to parking. What I find is a guarantee to the Team and Arena Manager that parking will be available and an Amended MUDA that clearly states the rights to revenue generated from those spots belongs to the City. If I am mistaken, I will gladly retract and acknowledge my error.

Regarding the legal opinions, they all started with an assumption of accuracy regarding the City's position. If I just assume the City is correct, I would arrive at the same opinion.

Thanks for the PM and your clarification. I will need to go back to the documents and find reference to what I had at one time concluded vested the rights with Moyes, including the right to charge for parking as the arena tenant. I'll try to find my source and post it for your consideration.

 

[Howler Scores]

GWI not suing over the Cubs/Mesa agreement does not disqualify them from taking action in the COG/Coyotes agreement. That is not an argument that would be valid in court, nor is it one that I have seen any of the legally minded posters on the board hang their hat either.

I respect your ideas and the only counter I can point out to your breakdown is that the Cubs deal is very important. It is similar in dollar amounts (80 million to the 50 or 100 million in bonds), and the official ruling in the $97 million dollar CityNorth case was:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/01/25/20100125citynorth0125.html

A deal that could give nearly $100 million in tax incentives to the Phoenix retail-and-housing development CityNorth can proceed, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday - even though the deal "quite likely" violated the state Constitution.

The court ruled unanimously to allow the deal despite questions about whether it violates the Constitution's gift clause, which prohibits giving public money to private parties without getting a fair return.

Justices said that the law has been difficult to apply in gift-clause cases, noting that a previous ruling "has been widely misunderstood during the past two decades and that our cases have never squarely addressed that issue."

Bolick, who filed the case in August 2007 on behalf of six small-business owners, said that in the future, "promises used by developers to justify subsidies are not enough anymore."

He said even though the agreement was allowed to stand, "I am not sure they will ever see a dime from the city" because of the development's financial problems.

Tom Irvin, an attorney who has been involved in negotiating similar agreements, said future agreements will have to be structured in ways that make the return to the public clear.

"It does not eliminate well-considered subsidies," he said, although they may end up smaller or more specific.

He said he was surprised the court let the CityNorth agreement stand, "but I understand that with two decades of confusion, overturning it could have opened a "Pandora's box" of challenges.

For this reason, if it was to go to court, it would affect a whole bunch of deals and could take a lot of money out of the State. I think a future judge could rule the Cubs/Coyotes deals in the similar fashion but every judge can view the same document differently.

 

[Whileee]

The take it to the judge comment was related only to a discovery dispute. MH's lawyer attempted to explain, but the GWI would have nothing of it and quickly changed the subject. Listen to the audio again. I think you will agree.

Better yet, I read the transcripts. Here is the relevant interchange between the GWI lawyers and the COG's lawyer (Tindall). I maintain that Tindall was unhelpful and evasive in addressing the issue of the parking rights and the January 25, 2011 agreement with Ellman. He is miffed and decides to focus on the access to information request, but he also is clearly evading the central issue, and he could easily have used this opportunity to decimate the GWI's legal position on this, if he had the evidence at hand.

MR. BOLICK: In particular, in our
14 questions, we referenced a January 25th, 2011, document
15 where the City signed a contract with the developer of
16 Westgate regarding parking rights.
17 Really, there's two questions there.
18 Why did we have to find that on our own when it is so
19 clearly relevant to the issues that we're trying to
20 resolve; and, second of all, what's the deal?

21 MR. TINDALL: I dispute your "clearly
22 relevant" statement. We talked about it yesterday at
23 length. You've got a judge, Clint. Go take it up with
24 the judge.

25 MR. DRANIAS: Let me just read into the record what we're talking about. We're talking about a
2 January 25th --

3 MR. TINDALL: Reading it into the record
4 sounds like an interrogation or a deposition. Is that
5 what we're doing?

6 MR. DRANIAS: This is for the benefit of
7 everyone to understand what we're talking about. We're
8 talking about January 25th, 2011, First Amendment to
9 the mixed-use development agreement between the City of
10 Glendale and the developers of Westgate, and what's
11 especially significant about this document is how at
12 page 10, paragraph 9, it specifically says, quote,
13 "The City shall be entitled to impose parking charges
14 for the use of all parking spaces for Arena events,"
15 and it goes on to say that it can retain all such
16 revenue.
17 Now, this is in January of 2011. The
18 City is acquiring all of the parking rights relating to
19 the Arena, and this document wasn't produced to us.
20 Why is that?

21 MR. TINDALL: Take it up with the judge.
22 We have litigation. We're in the midst of litigation.
23 Take it up with the judge.

 

[goyotes]

Better yet, I read the transcripts. Here is the relevant interchange between the GWI lawyers and the COG's lawyer (Tindall). I maintain that Tindall was unhelpful and evasive in addressing the issue of the parking rights and the January 25, 2011 agreement with Ellman. He is miffed and decides to focus on the access to information request, but he also is clearly evading the central issue, and he could easily have used this opportunity to decimate the GWI's legal position on this, if he had the evidence at hand.

The response originated with the question of why the document had not been produced. Again, the reference was to go to the judge who is handling the record production compliance issues.

 

[Howler Scores]

Question being, one is a primary consideration for them, and the other might be secondary. Do you think they are more concerned with prevailing on the constitutional clause they reference or getting public credit for the specifics of a deal that may pass the muster?

Short answer: It’s all about the publicity.

Long answer: IMO, as a local in the fine County of Maricopa, I have to question if they are truly looking out for all tax payers. I feel GWI is like any other business and they need to generate revenues. From their annual reports, it appears they get about $2 million in donations/revenue each year (So I can’t wait to see what their newest reports will state to see if there was a bump in revenues).

My issue is that the Cubs were very close to getting a "Cubs Tax" placed on all teams in the Cactus League. So instead, Mesa works out a deal that will have some tax revenue generated in exchange for issuing a bond to build the Cubs new stadium. The Cubs threatened to move if they did not get a new stadium. The difference can be argued that the deal is also backed by land that they can sell (if I am correct).

To me it’s a similar case but with different players. So for GWI to not go after them by saying "they (Mesa) works with us", I have to wonder if it’s all about public credit and recognition to receive future donations versus keeping an eye out for the poor tax payer. That is the long answer to your questions and in my small circle of friends, 80% agree to that view. (But that poll is biased as you can see).

 

[OthmarAmmann]

05-05-2009 Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes

Happy anniversary everybody!!

From that thread:

This should be interesting.

Seriously

 

[cbcwpg]

Goldwater offers solutions to Coyotes quandary

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/05/05/goldwater-offers-solutions-to-coyotes-quandary/

1- The city should pursue more private investment in the deal by having the NHL reduce its upfront sales price for the team and spread any balance out over the 30 year arena lease term.

2- It should also demand that the NHL promise not to relocate the Coyotes over the term of the lease.

3- The city should reduce the management fee so that it does not reimburse the future owner of the Coyotes for operating expenses that only benefit the team.

4- And if the future owner of the Coyotes really believes he can turn the bankrupt team around, Glendale should demand a 100% asset-backed guarantee of all revenues that have been promised to the city.

 

[Mungman]

I tend to like dealing with probabilities more than gambling, but I would wager that there is no chance whatsoever that CF ends up selling beads at SFO.

Completely agree, I did say I hope it happens rather than I think it will. Like when I was a kid I HOPED the school would collapse so that I could get out of going, but alas I did not think it would happen.

So now that I think about it all I have in this affair is hope, 'cuz I have no real idea of what I think will happen down the road....