The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Jordan!]

I just don't see a way how this group will want Westgate's blood on it's hands... they will get the exposure as long as they can and step aside in the end claiming that less damage will be done to tax payers if they do so.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

There has to be a way to have sorted this way earlier, a smaller partial bond issue just to precipitate the action, and there has to be a reason the city has blocked every attempt to have the deal and the finances looked at way earlier.
Had they made the paperwork available in 2009 when asked the issue of whether the GI was going to sue would have been sorted and they could then have made plans around it.
It makes no sense to do what the city has done or how they have acted if the deal is legal.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

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



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.

Interesting if it was true.

He has reponsibility in this boondoggle along with many others.

Right now his job is to make the best out of the situation however, and responding as he did in that comment is anything but starting some sort of pissing match. Its his opinion and is shared by many.

[Mazrim]

I just wanted to say thanks to those with legal knowledge giving their opinions in this thread...been fascinating to read. Keep it up.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

I just don't see a way how this group will want Westgate's blood on it's hands... they will get the exposure as long as they can and step aside in the end claiming that less damage will be done to tax payers if they do so.

You know the voters there better than I but I get the sense that a right wing think tank will argue that the arena is just proof goverments have no place in sports (which I agree with) and that the deal would have ended up with more financial demands to keep the team there in the future and anyway it was the cities job to structure a legal deal, not expect to be able to skirt the law just because they screwed up already.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There has to be a way to have sorted this way earlier, a smaller partial bond issue just to precipitate the action, and there has to be a reason the city has blocked every attempt to have the deal and the finances looked at way earlier.
Had they made the paperwork available in 2009 when asked the issue of whether the GI was going to sue would have been sorted and they could then have made plans around it.
It makes no sense to do what the city has done or how they have acted if the deal is legal.

Maybe there were better ways to handle it in order to head off GWI, but I don't know that this is a group that would have ever been sated. They don't seem to want to bargain here, it seems much more like sticking to their agenda word for word then it does working to find a mutually beneficial solution. The other aspect is that this deal has played out in a bit of a nightmare situation, it would ahev been hard for Glendale to approach things exactly how they wanted when it seemed like there was a new twist around every corner.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Maybe there were better ways to handle it in order to head off GWI, but I don't know that this is a group that would have ever been sated. They don't seem to want to bargain here, it seems much more like sticking to their agenda word for word then it does working to find a mutually beneficial solution. The other aspect is that this deal has played out in a bit of a nightmare situation, it would ahev been hard for Glendale to approach things exactly how they wanted when it seemed like there was a new twist around every corner.

There is no bargining though, it is purely a question of whether the deal breaches the law, its the only thing the GI cares about, if the deal is legal the GI goes away. The city needed to find out if it was legal months ago.

[ogre2010]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole premise of COG giving Hulszier 100 Million was for the parking rights of 5500 stalls at Jobing.com arena. Hulszier is than getting an additional 97 million over 6 years to run the arena. So if the bonds go through at 7% is the last number I saw. Which works out to 7 million annually, the COG is going to see a profit after 7 million in parking........ GOOD LUCK!! So 180 million for an arena, 197 million to let someone else buy the team and run said arena oh and now you're on the hook for 7 million in intrest payments for the next 30 years. 210 Million!! So now you have paid 687 million for a nhl team with taxpayer money. Oh and the team in question just lost 40 million this past year and it was working on a very tight budget!! Who in their right mind would do this????

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Interesting if it was true.

Exactly, I no more blame Bettman for everything then you do for nothing.**

I'm not attempting to say that what he said was or wasn't true (It's an opinion so it's neither really) but it did strike me (AKA my opinion) as him starting a pissing match given the tone of his statement, in that regard it doesn't matter whether it's his opinion nor whether anyone agrees with it.

**Note: Actually as the guy ultimately most responsible for the running of the NHL I do assign him some blame him for everything that goes wrong, but by the same standard he get's some credit for everything that goes right.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ogre2010

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole premise of COG giving Hulszier 100 Million was for the parking rights of 5500 stalls at Jobing.com arena. Hulszier is than getting an additional 97 million over 6 years to run the arena. So if the bonds go through at 7% is the last number I saw. Which works out to 7 million annually, the COG is going to see a profit after 7 million in parking........ GOOD LUCK!! So 180 million for an arena, 197 million to let someone else buy the team and run said arena oh and now you're on the hook for 7 million in intrest payments for the next 30 years. 210 Million!! So now you have paid 687 million for a nhl team with taxpayer money. Oh and the team in question just lost 40 million this past year and it was working on a very tight budget!! Who in their right mind would do this????

You forgot the part where the city is getting revenue back.

1. Part of the arena has been paid off already through the previous lease with the Coyotes.
2. The point of keeping the Coyotes there is to ensure there is a tenant paying money to play in the arena, allowing the city to pay down that arena and bond debt.
3. There would be parking revenue generated via this deal. How much would depend on a multitude of factors.
4. You make a rather silly assumption that the principal would remain constant for the next 30 years. Then, I presume, magically disappear? As the city pays back the bond, the interest owed will decrease.

The amount of money the team loses is irrelevant, as that would be Hulsizer's problem, not Glendale's.

Now, I'm not actually trying to defend Glendale's position here, as I doubt very much they come close to recouping the costs. But as stated above, your opinion that it is a bad deal is not synonymous with the argument that it is illegal. I think it is a bad deal too - and certainly have not been pro-keep-the-team-in-Phoenix. But really, "Why Phoenix sucks" is not a "Why Winnipeg is good" argument.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is no bargining though, it is purely a question of whether the deal breaches the law, its the only thing the GI cares about, if the deal is legal the GI goes away. The city needed to find out if it was legal months ago.

Hence the multiple legal opinions on the matter. And I'm not going to engage in your 'the lawyers probably said it was illegal and Glendale went ahead anyways' argument as it is so completely out of touch with the realities of a bond offering that there's really nothing I can say that will change our mind.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Hence the multiple legal opinions on the matter. And I'm not going to engage in your 'the lawyers probably said it was illegal and Glendale went ahead anyways' argument as it is so completely out of touch with the realities of a bond offering that there's really nothing I can say that will change our mind.

I think we can both agree that doing this months earlier makes more sense. I seriously cannot see any reason why the city choose to leave the bond issue until the 11th hour.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think we can both agree that doing this months earlier makes more sense. I seriously cannot see any reason why the city choose to leave the bond issue until the 11th hour.

Well they've been putting this bond issue together for a long time, but there are moving parts in deals like this right up until closing. Heck, when the market was in full swing things were signed up with major terms reserved for post closing agreement. I'm sure they would have loved to have closed this months ago, but it's not that simple, and GWI's influence/interference has really turned things into chaos.

There was likely a lot of behind the scenes things happening here that had people on either side convinced they were in the clear one second and totally hooped the next. A lot of moving parts and a lot of politics.

[Daradon]

For the good of the league Bettman needs to admit he was wrong and cut bait.

I'm sorry, this is getting idiotic. It's just becoming a bad business decision now. No, hang on, it's continuing to be a horrible business decision now.

Would a healthy team in Phoenix be the best result? Sure it would. BUT IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

I hope this is the beginning of the end for the little man. I hope this just throws more egg on his face and shows the owners and directors the need for a new commish.

And here I was so happy with him after the Heritage Classic... Sigh...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

2. The point of keeping the Coyotes there is to ensure there is a tenant paying money to play in the arena, allowing the city to pay down that arena and bond debt.

The Coyotes wont be paying more than $19M a year to play in the arena so I don't know how the city will be able to use this to pay down the arena or bond debt.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Daradon

For the good of the league Bettman needs to admit he was wrong and cut bait.

I'm sorry, this is getting idiotic. It's just becoming a bad business decision now. No, hang on, it's continuing to be a horrible business decision now.

Would a healthy team in Phoenix be the best result? Sure it would. BUT IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

I hope this is the beginning of the end for the little man. I hope this just throws more egg on his face and shows the owners and directors the need for a new commish.

And here I was so happy with him after the Heritage Classic... Sigh...

We of all people should appreciate what Bettman is doing. He should give every market, every reasonable chance to make it work. This could be us one day.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by troutman

We of all people should appreciate what Bettman is doing. He should give every market, every reasonable chance to make it work. This could be us one day.

This reasoning has been used for years now. Everytime someone says something about what's going on in bad markets, and Bettmans stubborness towards them, someone throws out the, 'Well if it wasn't for Bettman, Calgary and Edmonton wouldn't have teams right now.'

I take a bit of exception to this argument.

I do agree that he did a lot for our team. You can't disagree with that. However, like with every situation, they are different and should be judged differently.

1. Our biggest problem was the Canadian dollar. Not the fan support, not the business dealings, but the dollar. Which neither the fans or the business could do anything about. And if you let all the Canadian teams disappear from the league because of something which simply cannot be helped, well, it would be devastating for the league. Canada provides the most players, the most viewership, and the most income, not only per capita, but close to hands down. Helping save Canadian franchises was far more important, ESPECIALLY after he was so quick to move Winnipeg and Quebec City.

Which I also agree, needed to be moved at the time. But it would have been nice to see the same fight for them as for these Sun Belt cities.

2. As mentioned in number one, while attendance number were low, they were nothing compared to the problems we are seeing in these southern cities. There is a HUGE difference between 10,000 and 6,000. Or 4,000. The people aren't supporting their team so why should the league?

If people were going to the games and the team was still losing money because of a bad arena or bad dollar, then fine, I understand that. But the local community IS NOT SUPPORTING their teams. So move on.

3. The experiment didn't work. We all know that these teams, and their locales were mainly picked for the possibility of TV contracts. Well, we are still waiting on those. Guess what. It's not going to happen. So if you make a business decision and your number one reason or income source doesn't show, maybe it's time to rethink the decision.

4. Lastly, yes we do owe Bettman thanks for helping save Edmotnon and Calgary. But it's hard to gush when he was part of the problem to begin with. Whether or not he was in charge when most of the expansion plans were made, he was there for some of it, and wholly endorsed it and moved to make it work. The rampant expansion into bad markets watered down the talent of the league cause of the need for new players and was a big part if not the biggest part of driving salaries through the roof. The main problem for the small market teams. So sorry. He didn't save us, he just helped fix his first mistake.

Which is what I'm saying to him right now. Continue to fix this mistake or get the heck out. The league is still not doing great. It needs money and successful franchises. Stop being so proud and admit some of these locales were a bad idea and will never work.

EDIT: Or don't be so high and mighty over these teams and fans when you clearly weren't in Winnipeg and Quebec.

Sorry, I'm in an fiesty mood today. But the point stands. Don't feed us all this bs and expect us to swallow it. It has nothing to do with Glendale, or the Coyotes fans, and it has everything to do with his vision of the league, wanting to hit the home run, and his pride.

And now it's just becoming bad business. The funny thing is every single day this drags, the Balsillie deal looks better for the league and for the city of Glendale.

Looks good on ya Bettman.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by troutman

We of all people should appreciate what Bettman is doing. He should give every market, every reasonable chance to make it work. This could be us one day.

Did he do the same when the team was being moved out of Winnipeg the first time?

I really dont recall, but my impression is that he didnt make a concerted effort to keep it there then.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Did he do the same when the team was being moved out of Winnipeg the first time?

I really dont recall, but my impression is that he didnt make a concerted effort to keep it there then.

he did what he could with a team that had an antiquated stadium unsuitable for NHL hockey and no one willing to purchase the team and keep it there.

really not even comparable to this situation as it stands right now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Did he do the same when the team was being moved out of Winnipeg the first time?

I really dont recall, but my impression is that he didnt make a concerted effort to keep it there then.

The Winnipeg situation in the mid 1990s would be comparable to Atlanta over the last two years, except that Atlanta has a good arena where Winnipeg did not.

The league did work to try and find a local owner without success. In fact, 1994-95 was supposed to be the Jets last season and the Jets were supposed to relocate to Minnesota. The Spirit of Manitoba bid was subsequently given a shot at buying and keeping the team in Winnipeg - though I don't know if the first relocation attempt was stopped because of the bid, or if the Spirit bid came after the relocation fell through.