The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

anywas, can you image if the flames were for sale, and the new owner wanted the city of calgary to give him all c-train revenues on game days......back in the good old days, billionaires bought sports teams with money, rather than financial hocus-pocus.....

Why would you buy something with money when it's in a distressed state and you can take advantage of that leverage? That's how billionaires become billionaires, not by throwing down the amex black card and paying full price, by finding opportunities in the market to earn more millions. I don't know that professional sports provides that, seems like a poor investment (if you discount the intrinsic value of owning a team), but we've seen lots of owners get massive concessions from government that have helped them earn many times their investment. In general I'm not a fan of the concept, but here Glendale finds itself in a lose lose situation, financing this sale is really the only option they have left to recoup some of the cost of building the arena in the first place. This is a case of an otherwise bad deal being the only way to improve a bad situation.

[Mazrim]

EDIT: Ignore this.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i am surprised that on a gameday they would rent out the ice to guys playing shinny - on a non-gameday, no issue......

Why not? What do you think is going to happen to the ice?

Especially in a place like Glendale where there probably isn't a lot of skating rinks, it would be a good way to grow the sport by offering inexpensive opportunities to play it.

[ogre2010]

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5789

Goldwater Institute to NHL Commissioner: Sports franchises not above the law

Goldwater Institute News Release
March 9, 2011

Phoenix—NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman Tuesday night accused the Goldwater Institute of blocking a scheme under which Chicago businessman Matthew Hulsizer would receive a greater than $100 million taxpayer subsidy to buy the Coyotes. The independent taxpayer watchdog organization is not party to the arrangement but has attempted to obtain public records related to the deal to determine its legality. Bettman refused to accept the Goldwater Institute’s invitation to meet in a transparent setting open to journalists, stating, “the situation is far too serious for such game play.”

Goldwater Institute President Darcy Olsen responded, “It sounds like Commissioner Bettman is playing a game of his own: Hide the ball.” The City of Glendale has been under a court order to provide the Institute with records pertaining to the Coyotes sale since July 2009, but the city has delayed multiple requests for public documents and instructed its attorneys to “ignore” the Goldwater Institute’s public information requests.

The Goldwater Institute argues that citizens have the right to know how public officials plan to spend more than $100 million tax dollars. “We will not stop this investigation until this information comes to light,” Olsen reiterated.

Bettman added, “it fascinates me that whoever is running the Goldwater Institute can substitute their judgment for that of the Glendale city council.” Goldwater Institute President Darcy Olsen replied that, “I guess we are both fascinated. It happens to fascinate me greatly that the Commissioner thinks a handful of politicians can substitute their judgment for the rule of law.”

Olsen said the Institute will continue combing through more than 600 pages of documents provided by the city in the last few business days. Olsen said the situation could be resolved if a willing buyer agrees to buy the team with his own money, making this a win-win for Coyotes fans and taxpayers alike. “The NHL is negotiating a deal to sell the Dallas Stars right now, and no taxpayer money appears to be on the table,” said Olsen. “The Goldwater Institute is trying to protect citizens who don’t have the resources to fight city hall. We are not anxious to sue Glendale, which would be a further waste of tax dollars, but no person or city should be above the law. We hope the city will abide by the law and render further legal action unnecessary.”

[Parallex]

Oh yay... Bettman started a (metaphorical) dickwaving contest. Good times. Good times.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Oh yay... Bettman started a (metaphorical) dickwaving contest. Good times. Good times.

He did? How so?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He did? How so?

The snide comments directed at the GWI that has resulted in snide comments directed back at the NHL.

Bettman added, “it fascinates me that whoever is running the Goldwater Institute can substitute their judgment for that of the Glendale city council.” Goldwater Institute President Darcy Olsen replied that, “I guess we are both fascinated. It happens to fascinate me greatly that the Commissioner thinks a handful of politicians can substitute their judgment for the rule of law.”

[JBR]

I love how they call the agreement a scheme. Makes it sound like someone is trying to sell snake oil to a vulnerable old lady.

[troutman]

TSN's "Jets Meter" hasn't budged despite all the bad news for PHO this week:

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

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The snide comments directed at the GWI that has resulted in snide comments directed back at the NHL.

“it fascinates me that whoever is running the Goldwater Institute can substitute their judgment for that of the Glendale city council.”

Is not snide whatsoever, and in fact I think completely appropriate. Its a very fair question/answer to a reporters question IMO. reason being is that is exactly what is happening, regardless of which side of the fence one is on in this debate.

All that aside, did the GWI not start this whole thing (rightfully or wrongly)with threats to sue?

Anything to blame Bettman for everything I guess.

[valo403]

I think what really demonstrate's Goldwater's ultimate motivation here is the fact they weren't willing to actually meet with Bettman without the media present. They aren't interested in working to make a deal that they'd be happy with, they're interested in making noise and getting press attention. If that's their goal, fine, but what ticks me off about groups like this is the way they maintain the stance that they're only there to serve the interests of the public like some sort of right wing Mother Theresa.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is not snide whatsoever

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it... I feel differently. In my opinion adding the equivalency to "I find it facinating that..." as a precurser to a statement with negative connatations is a deliberately catty (snide) remark

Originally Posted by transplant99

Anything to blame Bettman for everything I guess.

Shrug... it takes two dicks to have a dickwaving contest. I just think Bettman is the one that sharpened his rhetoric first (thus starting it). I don't blame Bettman for everything although I find it facinating (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) that his ardent supporters seem to believe that he's some paragon of virtue that can do no wrong in regards to anything... See phrasing something like that is catty isn't it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

One would assume that with over a hundred mill on the line a legal opinion has been sought, it is a reasonably simple question, will the deal involve taxes paying off the bonds?

Agreed completely, which is why your original statement was stupid.

The city undoubtedly spoke with its lawyers, who undoubtedly gave the opinion that the bond would hold up in court if challenged. But if the lawyers said "you will lose" as you suggest, the city would not have gone forward with that plan.

Whether those lawyers are correct is a matter for a judge to decide, should Goldwater actually bring a suit.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Agreed completely, which is why your original statement was stupid.

The city undoubtedly spoke with its lawyers, who undoubtedly gave the opinion that the bond would hold up in court if challenged. But if the lawyers said "you will lose" as you suggest, the city would not have gone forward with that plan.

Whether those lawyers are correct is a matter for a judge to decide, should Goldwater actually bring a suit.

I tend to think if their lawyers had said it would hold up in court the city would have precipitated GI's action 6 months ago in order to go to court so as to not be in the mess they are in, the city's actions in this case from the begining have been to not release information until the last possible minute, it took a court order to make the papers available and even then they have been obstructive in the extreme to the GI, this is not a good way to sell bonds if they are legal.

That the GI would take an interest in this case was obvious right from the begining, the way the city has acted has guarenteed that the deal is where it is right now, which only makes sense if the city figured that this flawed, oppositional and highly risky process was still the best way to get the deal done.

My guess is the cities lawyers told the city the deal was a pig and the only way they would get through it would be to play chicken with the GI, leave things until the last possible minute so that the GI had to decide whether it wanted to be responsible for killing the team and try and play things out in the press rather than the courts.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ogre2010

How is it a bluff? They have asked COG for all the documents for this transaction with Hulszier under freedom of info act. The city is trying to sell municple bonds to GIVE the proceeds to Hulszier to buy a private franchise, under the assumption they are buying parking rights from the team that the city already owns??? The City has guarnteed the bonds with excise taxes (public money) if they don't make enough money off of parking revenues from a parking lot that has never charged for parking before. Oh yeah they're also paying another 78 Million in fees for Hulszier to run the arena over the next 6 years. All GWI is saying that this deal is bad for tax payers, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.... must be a duck. aka BAD DEAL for taxpayers.

I'm sure you meant arena rather than team, however, if there is no team, there is no parking rights to sell or buy. And I agree, this is definitely a case of creative financing. But the fact that it is creative, and the opinion that it is a bad deal for tax payers does not automatically make it illegal.

All of this is speculative, but there is a possibility that the issue gets settled in this fashion, Hulsizer stabilizes the franchise, it continues to win, leading to higher attendance and higher than anticipated parking fees. At the same time, as arena manager, he manages to bring more events, also charging for parking, and the deal turns out quite profitable.

Likely? Maybe, maybe not, and I'm not holding my breath. But it is possible. I suspect that a legal challenge on the legality of the bond issue would revolve around that: the deal could be a big win for the city and taxpayers, but there are no guarantees. Lacking the guarantee, does state law/constitution support it? As I said above, that is something a judge will have to decide.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The city undoubtedly spoke with its lawyers, who undoubtedly gave the opinion that the bond would hold up in court if challenged. But if the lawyers said "you will lose" as you suggest, the city would not have gone forward with that plan.

Pretty much. I find it doubtful the CoG would have gone forward if the illegality of it was without doubt... Now having said that I could see them going forward if the legality of it was with doubt (Example: They pose the question to 10 city lawyers 4 say that their legal opinion is that it's legal, 4 say it's not, 2 aren't sure).

[Gozer]

I agree with the Goldwater group in this case, gov't money should not be being funneled into failing private businesses.

I would be fascinated if Glendale litigated against them.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I tend to think if their lawyers had said it would hold up in court the city would have precipitated GI's action 6 months ago in order to go to court so as to not be in the mess they are in,

How do you go to court by yourself?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

How do you go to court by yourself?

Generally you go to the group you know is going to sue you if they don't like the deal, you go over the plans and if they object you ask them to file an injunction.

Going to court doesn't have to be oppositional, and lot of deals get shaped in court with the full agreement and cooperation of both parties.

You usually do this well in advance of any deadlines or the like, and you make the paperwork available as early as possible.

What the city have done is equivalent to walking into a divorce court a day before judgement, handing over all their tax returns and income statements and then threatening the spouse for wanting to take more than a few hours to look things over.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Generally you go to the group you know is going to sue you if they don't like the deal, you go over the plans and if they object you ask them to file an injunction.

Going to court doesn't have to be oppositional, and lot of deals get shaped in court with the full agreement and cooperation of both parties.

Wrong country. Not a chance you get a court to hear an injunction proceeding that far in advance of the bonds coming into existence, injuctions are for imminent threats to the interests of a party. US courts do not give advice on hypothetical matters.