Westhead: Coyotes' survival hinges on arena deal battle

[LPHabsFan]

The PR fight can't be won by the NHL because there is so much dirt and mud on this whole situation that the COG and people against the deal has enough ammo to go bullet for bullet with the NHL that the only likely scenario is where both sides come out looking like pieces of.......

I've read the likely possibilities for how this plays out and what I see is that it all depends on how strong the COG's argument is to link Tindall (we're assuming) to IA. IF they go with weak stuff along the lines of "well the language that he wrote in the JIG agreement was used in the IA agreement (which I saw as an example above)" then imo I can't really see this going far and it's likely the NHL would get a TRO.

However, it's also possible (and hopefully likely) that the COG has emails or official minutes documenting Tindall's active negotiating or advisement with regards to this deal and if they have that, my guess is it's game over for the NHL.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Yes, bit I imagine dates would be a problem and the team would have to go for a song. Otherwise, Quebec.

But I'm sure the city would let the Coyotes stay without a lease, they would be bled dry by the losses and would have to likely move if they hadn't won the court case, but it would be a play for time.

The team will go for a song anyway. The NHL is kidding themselves to to think that they will get 200 million for this mess.

As Foogs mentioned a bit ago, it's also hard to fight from a PR standpoint. All along the league has said they want to keep the Yotes in Arizona for the city, and they want to be a valuable partner. It's a lot tougher to say that if you're actively suing the city because they thought the deal was so bad they outright cancelled it.

Someone should call Les Alexander in Houston right now. That market is bigger than Phoenix and if cheap enough, he will bite.

It may end up being much easier, and much better on the PR side, to simply throw your hands up and say "Hey we tried to be a good partner, we even let the team lose $X million in order to try and build the market, but the city screwed us and cancelled our deal"

Agreed. Just throw in the towel, but does the BOG want the second black eye in 4 years?

 

[Nordskull]

Makes sense

I guess Mr. Sherwood sees the writing on the wall so he may as well try and play Switzerland here.

I'll throw my hat in the ring for the next thread sub-title.

Phoenix (or Arizona) C: The Farce Awakens

The Saga Continues.....

YES A TITLE CONTEST!



PHOENIX,AZ - JE T'AIME, MOI NON PLUS

PS famous french writer Serge Gainsbourg song.. https://youtu.be/k3Fa4lOQfbA

 

[cutchemist42]

Wow, this blew up overnight, got some reading to do.

 

[CasualFan]

Craig Morgan was citing two sources saying Tindall was not involved with any lease discussion while he was serving as consultant to CoG following his resignation.

But I think you're right on track with the idea that the JIG lease was Tindall's work, and that because the RSE/IA lease agreement contains language from the JIG agreement, Glendale will try to show Tindall was connected to the IA lease agreement.

Wow, curve ball from Morgan there, huh? I sure thought he would report that the deal is terrible for the city and they may have found a legitimate path via A.R.S. to void the lease based on the Coyotes arrogant and foolish move of hiring Tindall.

Here's the thing, theres pretty much no way any outside observer can know what evidence is out there on Tindalls involvement. Were there correspondences between Tindall and Nick Wood that constitute initiation? Was Tindall involved in drafting or creating, even if by way of JIG carry forward sections? Was he even the one who drafted that? We don't know what we don't know. The city probably doesn't even have all the details compiled yet so I doubt anyone is in a position to make a finding of fact at this point. 38-511 doesn't appear to be a very high barrier and IA will likely be the party pushing uphill on this.

Of course, this is all based on assuming this is not a renegotiation ploy and assuming there are at least four that support pursuing termination and assuming they will vote to do so this evening.

No matter, good times are here again. I think I even saw kdb post a thread intro a few pages back.

 

[Brick City]

This wasn't big enough news to justify its own thread last night?

EDIT: Can we get a recap in the first post of the incoming new thread?

 

[canuckster19]

YES A TITLE CONTEST!



PHOENIX,AZ - JE T'AIME, MOI NON PLUS

PS famous french writer Serge Gainsbourg song.. https://youtu.be/k3Fa4lOQfbA

Y tu Coyotes tambien.
(And your Coyotes too)

 

[IceAce]

I'll throw my hat in the ring for the next thread sub-title.

Phoenix (or Arizona) C: The Farce Awakens

The Saga Continues.....

Love it

 

[PCSPounder]

The PR fight can't be won by the NHL because there is so much dirt and mud on this whole situation that the COG and people against the deal has enough ammo to go bullet for bullet with the NHL that the only likely scenario is where both sides come out looking like pieces of.......

I've read the likely possibilities for how this plays out and what I see is that it all depends on how strong the COG's argument is to link Tindall (we're assuming) to IA. IF they go with weak stuff along the lines of "well the language that he wrote in the JIG agreement was used in the IA agreement (which I saw as an example above)" then imo I can't really see this going far and it's likely the NHL would get a TRO.

However, it's also possible (and hopefully likely) that the COG has emails or official minutes documenting Tindall's active negotiating or advisement with regards to this deal and if they have that, my guess is it's game over for the NHL.

It does neither side any good to go nuclear. CoG has a building to fill.

That doesn't mean the city shouldn't void the lease. Their need is budgetary. And they have to know that the league's reaction may well be to leave town. Hence the timing was at the precipice... but not July.

A lawsuit makes it harder to get a deal elsewhere. But not trying to enforce the deal makes the league look weak. What's the balance here? Shrug.

Right now, the league has their out to leave without it looking too terribly like they undermined a building built with public money... and there's a group of councilors in Glendale who can look like responsible stewards of public money by voting to void the deal. But it looks better if the NHL does NOT say "we'll never come back" AND it looks better if the city says "we just couldn't afford this deal and former ownership put us in a bind." I think Barroway and friends are throwing up a predictable fight that will probably go away, and this team will probably leave. But if played smart, it won't be the last of NHL in Arizona.

 

[Killion]

Here's Morgan's take....
READ MORE>>>>

This guy really is a shill for the NHL & its interests. Corporate Media. Bought & paid for. Telegraphs the most likely tack should litigation follow.

Just a little sidebar....

In November of 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona concerning Tindall. Lieberman alleged that Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while still being paid a severance by Glendale. The State Bar dismissed that claim.


"The state Bar conducted a very thorough investigation. And after that investigation, they dismissed Mr. Lieberman's charge. I think the dismissal speaks for itself," Tindall's attorney, Andrew Halaby, said Friday.

"After our investigation of this matter we have decided to dismiss the allegations because this is not clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation," Perlmeter wrote in the letter to Halaby, which was obtained by The Arizona Republic.

Yeah. Then theres this. And if we follow the bouncing ball in speculating a possible suit, the above likely a lot more than just a sidebar. The central argument in IceArizona's suit should they bring one on.

Phoenix (or Arizona) C: The Farce Awakens

The Saga Continues.....

... Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Wow, curve ball from Morgan there, huh? I sure thought he would report that the deal is terrible for the city and they may have found a legitimate path via A.R.S. to void the lease based on the Coyotes arrogant and foolish move of hiring Tindall.

Here's the thing, theres pretty much no way any outside observer can know what evidence is out there on Tindalls involvement. Were there correspondences between Tindall and Nick Wood that constitute initiation? Was Tindall involved in drafting or creating, even if by way of JIG carry forward sections? Was he even the one who drafted that? We don't know what we don't know. The city probably doesn't even have all the details compiled yet so I doubt anyone is in a position to make a finding of fact at this point. 38-511 doesn't appear to be a very high barrier and IA will likely be the party pushing uphill on this.

Of course, this is all based on assuming this is not a renegotiation ploy and assuming there are at least four that support pursuing termination and assuming they will vote to do so this evening.

No matter, good times are here again. I think I even saw kdb post a thread intro a few pages back.

Anthony LeBlanc was actively involved, lead guy & been on-site since 2009. Involved with Hulsizer, was hovering during Jamisons period of exclusivity & so on & so forth. He was dealing with Tindall, theres a pattern, a history. Seems to me no stretch to trace the genesisis of the current agreement between the COG & IA back through the JIG & previously Hulsizer deals when the template was first created and created by Craig Tindall. Merely tweaked over the intervening months & years, has his fingerprints, DNA all over it. And ya, sure he resigned prior to final closing negotiations with IA however, he was still under contract as a Consultant with the city during and through that period, beggars belief not to think he was involved at some level and that while having also accepted a position with IA as General Council. You mention CF that the bar pursuant to the statute cited isnt terribly high and as such, certainly looks like a slam dunk, wide open net for the City. The $225M question is whether or not IA/NHL does file. Do they come out swinging or as speculated here, move for immediate Relocation to wherever?

 

[aqib]

How about Phoenix C: Getting the Band Back Together

 

[cutchemist42]

If they leave, in the end, I truly wonder if it was worth it monetarily for the NHL to go through all of this over the past few years. I know protecting their rights as a league against Balsillie was important, but would the NHL overall be richer overall if a move had happened years ago?

 

[MaskedSonja]

Just when we thought kdb could retire from his "story so far" link posts of links to previous parts of the saga.......sorry about that

 

[Llama19]

It does neither side any good to go nuclear. CoG has a building to fill.

That doesn't mean the city shouldn't void the lease. Their need is budgetary. And they have to know that the league's reaction may well be to leave town. Hence the timing was at the precipice... but not July.

A lawsuit makes it harder to get a deal elsewhere. But not trying to enforce the deal makes the league look weak. What's the balance here? Shrug.

Right now, the league has their out to leave without it looking too terribly like they undermined a building built with public money... and there's a group of councilors in Glendale who can look like responsible stewards of public money by voting to void the deal. But it looks better if the NHL does NOT say "we'll never come back" AND it looks better if the city says "we just couldn't afford this deal and former ownership put us in a bind." I think Barroway and friends are throwing up a predictable fight that will probably go away, and this team will probably leave. But if played smart, it won't be the last of NHL in Arizona.

Very nice summary, very nice...

It is, and has always been, about the budget...

However, I don't agree with your last sentence...

 

[MaskedSonja]

If they leave, in the end, I truly wonder if it was worth it monetarily for the NHL to go through all of this over the past few years. I know protecting their rights as a league against Balsillie was important, but would the NHL overall be richer overall if a move had happened years ago?

I'm speculating that they still think it would be worth it-the protection of the control of franchises would be paramount to them, possibility of losing control of where franchises could go would be slippery slope I would think.

 

[Major4Boarding]

Found these to be eyebrow raising (from the Westhead article)

Last season, according to one source with a copy of the NHL's combined Unified Report of Operations, or URO, the Coyotes generated less than $25 million from ticket sales, while the average NHL team generated about $48 million.

"They may have a long term deal with Fox Sports, but it pays them next to nothing," the source said. To be sure, the Coyotes say business is booming.

Coyotes spokesman Rich Nairn said any council members who say they didn't have the "deal points" of the agreement are either "lying or have amnesia."

Hugh said that during the May 26, 2015, council meeting he asked Glendale's finance director, city manager and city attorney if any of them have a copy of the naming rights deal.

All of them said no, Hugh said.

Coyotes officials insist that the terms of the naming rights deal were discussed by city councilors during an in camera executive session meeting on Sept. 9, 2014.

LeBlanc said in the interview with NBC Sports Radio 1060 that some councilors confirmed to team officials that financial terms of the deal were discussed during that meeting - even though Arizona state law prohibits anyone who attends those meetings from discussing what is said during them. It's unclear whether the Arizona state's attorney office is aware of LeBlanc's comments.

 

[cbcwpg]

Anthony LeBlanc was actively involved, lead guy & been on-site since 2009. Involved with Hulsizer, was hovering during Jamisons period of exclusivity & so on & so forth. He was dealing with Tindall, theres a pattern, a history. Seems to me no stretch to trace the genesisis of the current agreement between the COG & IA back through the JIG & previously Hulsizer deals when the template was first created and created by Craig Tindall. Merely tweaked over the intervening months & years, has his fingerprints, DNA all over it. And ya, sure he resigned prior to final closing negotiations with IA however, he was still under contract as a Consultant with the city during and through that period, beggars belief not to think he was involved at some level and that while having also accepted a position with IA as General Council. You mention CF that the bar pursuant to the statute cited isnt terribly high and as such, certainly looks like a slam dunk, wide open net for the City no?.

And just to muddy the waters more....

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ismisses-complaint-coyotes-attorney/13199545/

Tindall formally relinquished his duties on April 1, but retained the title of special counsel and stayed on the city's payroll for six months while he drew his full municipal salary. The arrangement was made to spare the city a lump-sum payout of Tindall's severance package.

His separation agreement required him to respond to questions by city officials about matters he previously handled for Glendale, but prohibited him from providing legal advice to city officials. He remained in contact with some council members who generally were favorable to reaching a high-dollar deal with the Coyotes.

***

You have the CoG potentially trying to get out of the contract because they claim Tindall was "significantly involved" in the agreement and he became an employee of the Coyotes... YET, the same city only kept him on the payroll for 6 months because they didn't want to give him a lump sum payout. And what were the agreements between the CoG and Tindall while he was still there? The CoG could contact Tindall on aspects of previous work, but was he not allowed to pursue his own interests? I guess he should, but not if those interests are in dealings with the CoG... JMO.

And the whole claim about "remained in contact with some council members who generally were favorable to reaching a high-dollar deal with the Coyotes". If that doesn't raise some eyebrows, I don't know what will.

 

[LPHabsFan]

It does neither side any good to go nuclear. CoG has a building to fill.

That doesn't mean the city shouldn't void the lease. Their need is budgetary. And they have to know that the league's reaction may well be to leave town. Hence the timing was at the precipice... but not July.

A lawsuit makes it harder to get a deal elsewhere. But not trying to enforce the deal makes the league look weak. What's the balance here? Shrug.

Right now, the league has their out to leave without it looking too terribly like they undermined a building built with public money... and there's a group of councilors in Glendale who can look like responsible stewards of public money by voting to void the deal. But it looks better if the NHL does NOT say "we'll never come back" AND it looks better if the city says "we just couldn't afford this deal and former ownership put us in a bind." I think Barroway and friends are throwing up a predictable fight that will probably go away, and this team will probably leave. But if played smart, it won't be the last of NHL in Arizona.

Well I would argue that the COG has already gone nuclear (or at least will tonight if the vote passes). The main point I was trying to make was that in my viewpoint there is no scenario whereby both sides come out looking and smelling like roses. There are too many things in this whole cluster**** that makes it impossible for either the league or the COG to look I don't know, blameless maybe, in this situation in the short term and even ever.

Yeah. Then theres this. And if we follow the bouncing ball in speculating a possible suit, the above likely a lot more than just a sidebar. The central argument in IceArizona's suit should they bring one on.

I may be wrong but I don't believe the fact that the investigation didn't find anything unethical will directly impact any decision regarding the interpretation of the law that voids the lease. The investigation looked at whether there was anything unethical going on whereas the subsection that is being used to void the lease will simply looked at whether or not Tindall was involved. The only way that investigation would impact the current situation is that the investigation may show, already on record, that Tindall was indeed involved.

 

[cutchemist42]

I'll give credit to even SN guys who I dislike in Damien Cox openly tweeting about this topic and calling for the farce to end. I expected Friedman to always report on it.

 

[madhi19]

If they leave, in the end, I truly wonder if it was worth it monetarily for the NHL to go through all of this over the past few years. I know protecting their rights as a league against Balsillie was important, but would the NHL overall be richer overall if a move had happened years ago?

They probably would have been better off leaving two years ago than setting up this ridiculous house of cards. Like they say. "Pride goeth before destruction." Ego played a big role in this story, and cooler heads would have cut their loss half a decade ago.

 

[powerstuck]

Oh well, the **** has hit the fan...or did it ?

IMHO, Coyotes aren't going anywhere just yet. (Too short of a time frame and too many legal implications for them to do an Atlanta Thrashers move).

But one has to wonder what impact, if any, this could have on a ''discussion'' or ''vote'' about expansion process by the end of the month.

 

[Llama19]

Coyotes crisis rears ugly head at terrible time

Source: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-crisis-rears-ugly-head-at-terrible-time/

 

[CasualFan]

You mention CF that the bar pursuant to the statute cited isnt terribly high and as such, certainly looks like a slam dunk, wide open net for the City. The $225M question is whether or not IA/NHL does file. Do they come out swinging or as speculated here, move for immediate Relocation to wherever?

I mean low barrier in sense that it's far more a question of fact rather than a question of law. Tindall is an employee of IA so if he were to be found, factually, to have had a significant role in initiating, drafting, or creating the lease, they can void it without penalty. Have no idea if it's a slam dunk because there has been no discovery/docket of what Tindalls involvement was. The timing of his separation vs timing of the lease is largely irrelevant. If the city can demonstrate that he initiated, drafted, or created portions of the lease, they will have significant leverage to renegotiated the $15MM, which is likely their ideal outcome. Tony LB doesn't seem very interested in giving back any of his subsidy though

 

[MaskedSonja]

YES A TITLE CONTEST!



PHOENIX,AZ - JE T'AIME, MOI NON PLUS

PS famous french writer Serge Gainsbourg song.. https://youtu.be/k3Fa4lOQfbA

"Enter The Megathread" set to "Enter Sandman"

 

[cutchemist42]

They probably would have been better off leaving two years ago than setting up this ridiculous house of cards. Like they say. "Pride goeth before destruction." Ego played a big role in this story, and cooler heads would have cut their loss half a decade ago.

Yes, I think not moving and fighting Balsillie was correct, but yeah, would the NHL and its owners have been better off just moving this team before this lease?