The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

It should be noted the purchase price is now $210 so Hulsizer is already putting in an additional $40 million.

source?

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Lester

I would hope GWI doesn't give in to strong arm tactics like this.What they're doing is legal.

Except it's not illegal and who's strong arming who here??

What's interesting here is that Ken Kendricks (Diamondbacks) owner's wife is on the Board at Goldwater, potential conflict of interest suit.

GWI will bail..

[Lester]

wait what? i said what they're doing is legal.

this is a bully tactic, a pressure tactic. if you support the yotes and want them in phoenix or not this is like sending hired goons to someones house to get them to play ball

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lester

wait what? i said what they're doing is legal.

this is a bully tactic, a pressure tactic. if you support the yotes and want them in phoenix or not this is like sending hired goons to someones house to get them to play ball

Pretty common in large business transactions. Normal operating procedure actually.

No different that Ballsillie's failed power play last year and certainly completely legal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Because Gary Bettman would then look like the proverbial horse's rear end. And that he will not allow to happen.

No, because Balsillie spent several years making himself look like the proverbial horse's rear end, and is reaping the reward of his actions. Namely, he's not likely to ever own an NHL team. I kind of wanted him to succeed, if only for the entertainment value of having a renegade owner on the Maple Leafs' doorstep, but his actions in the Coyotes thing was something the NHL was obligated to fight, as the consequences of not doing so would have far, far exceeded the Coyotes moving to Hamilton.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Lester

wait what? i said what they're doing is legal.

this is a bully tactic, a pressure tactic. if you support the yotes and want them in phoenix or not this is like sending hired goons to someones house to get them to play ball

And yet we've seen no sense of outrage from you when GWI engages in similar tactics...

[Lester]

that statement is so laughable I wont bother giving you any kind of response.

[Resolute 14]

What's laughable is your feeble attempt to avoid admitting that Valo has a valid point.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, because Balsillie spent several years making himself look like the proverbial horse's rear end, and is reaping the reward of his actions. Namely, he's not likely to ever own an NHL team. I kind of wanted him to succeed, if only for the entertainment value of having a renegade owner on the Maple Leafs' doorstep, but his actions in the Coyotes thing was something the NHL was obligated to fight, as the consequences of not doing so would have far, far exceeded the Coyotes moving to Hamilton.

LOL - well, that is ALSO true....

[taxbuster]

The argument that one of the GI board members stands to gain does not hold up in terms of an action against ALL GI board members. Just against that one, unless the others can be shown to be acting in collusion (unlikely).

The fact is that this is a bad deal for the taxpayers from the get-go; the taxpayers in Glendale *should* be suing their city for the funding of an arena that had no expectation of profitability. With only one major tenant and little other use, the city left itself hugely exposed. Now they (and their taxpayers) are reaping the rewards of such a choice.

I'd buy a team, too, if the taxpayers of a city would finance me.

I'm surprised, so far, that no-one has taken city (or province, state or country) officials to court for making fiduciarily inept and indefensible decisions. A good decision that goes bad is one thing - a decision that was provably bad from the get-go is quite another....

(Given that I'm in the tax business, one of the interesting things is when CRA tries to second-guess a taxpayer's legitimate - but wrong - business decision and then denies a loss based on hindsight. It always fails for them. And so it should for Glendale, whose decision I find hard to qualify as 'legitimate'.)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The argument that one of the GI board members stands to gain does not hold up in terms of an action against ALL GI board members. Just against that one, unless the others can be shown to be acting in collusion (unlikely).

The fact is that this is a bad deal for the taxpayers from the get-go; the taxpayers in Glendale *should* be suing their city for the funding of an arena that had no expectation of profitability. With only one major tenant and little other use, the city left itself hugely exposed. Now they (and their taxpayers) are reaping the rewards of such a choice.

I'd buy a team, too, if the taxpayers of a city would finance me.

I'm surprised, so far, that no-one has taken city (or province, state or country) officials to court for making fiduciarily inept and indefensible decisions. A good decision that goes bad is one thing - a decision that was provably bad from the get-go is quite another....

(Given that I'm in the tax business, one of the interesting things is when CRA tries to second-guess a taxpayer's legitimate - but wrong - business decision and then denies a loss based on hindsight. It always fails for them. And so it should for Glendale, whose decision I find hard to qualify as 'legitimate'.)

What decision are you talking about here? The initial construction of the arena and related developments?

[Lester]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

What's laughable is your feeble attempt to avoid admitting that Valo has a valid point.

No he really doesn't. GWI has done nothing to bully anyone. They're a non profit agency with no agenda here other than to protect the tax payers from politicians who want to rip them off.

[カナダ人です]

Did the NHL/Bettman work this hard to keep the Jets in Winnipeg? All I remember is the "Save the Jets" campaign, but I think that was a fan-based initiative.

Honestly, I don't remember.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Lester

No he really doesn't. GWI has done nothing to bully anyone. They're a non profit agency with no agenda here other than to protect the tax payers from politicians who want to rip them off.

So let's get this straight.

Goldwater threatens to sue = Not bullying

Glendale threatens to sue = Bullying

Yep, that makes sense

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by valo403

What decision are you talking about here? The initial construction of the arena and related developments?

Yup.

As far as I can recall or tell, their failure to attract more than one significant use of the arena is the issue. Now one has to look back (there's that hindsight thing again) and determine whether, right at the start, that was foreseeable. If so - Glendale may have a problem. If not, then fine - it's just another bad business decision.

This ties into the GI's argument now: it is foreseeable that the potential for not being repaid is high - or at least substantial. That is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money (so their argument goes) and as fiduciary trustees of that the CofG should cease and desist. That there is a financial penalty to doing so MAY be dispensable by the courts if such an argument is held to be true as it could be viewed as a coercive venture.

There's a LOT of thorny law here - and quite different than a similar action in Canada. The GI has no obligation to 'disclose' whether they intend to sue; it might be 'kind' to do so, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Again, I'd be willing to bet that even if Hulsizer get his deal he'll be screaming for assistance, moving or some such in the not-too-distant future.

If I were an NHL owner I'd finally get off my duff, whack GB on the back and say - end this and let's get this franchise moved somewhere it stops sucking money from us - and maybe starts to send some back the other way! (But I don't think they're going to do that -- they still seem to think that GB and his 'cost certainty' is their saviour.)

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by valo403

So let's get this straight.

Goldwater threatens to sue = Not bullying

Glendale threatens to sue = Bullying

Yep, that makes sense

Irrelevant in both constructs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Irrelevant in both constructs.

Huh?

[moon]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

If I were an NHL owner I'd finally get off my duff, whack GB on the back and say - end this and let's get this franchise moved somewhere it stops sucking money from us - and maybe starts to send some back the other way! (But I don't think they're going to do that -- they still seem to think that GB and his 'cost certainty' is their saviour.)

Where is that mythical place?

There is nowhere that is going to come close to making money like that except a 2nd team in TO.

If it was that easy to get a situation like that teams would already be there.

[Joborule]

I'm pretty sure Lester is theonlywhiteout. If it doesn't work in favor for the Jets/works in favour of Coyotes, it's bad optics.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Yup.

As far as I can recall or tell, their failure to attract more than one significant use of the arena is the issue. Now one has to look back (there's that hindsight thing again) and determine whether, right at the start, that was foreseeable. If so - Glendale may have a problem. If not, then fine - it's just another bad business decision.

This ties into the GI's argument now: it is foreseeable that the potential for not being repaid is high - or at least substantial. That is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money (so their argument goes) and as fiduciary trustees of that the CofG should cease and desist. That there is a financial penalty to doing so MAY be dispensable by the courts if such an argument is held to be true as it could be viewed as a coercive venture.

There's a LOT of thorny law here - and quite different than a similar action in Canada. The GI has no obligation to 'disclose' whether they intend to sue; it might be 'kind' to do so, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Again, I'd be willing to bet that even if Hulsizer get his deal he'll be screaming for assistance, moving or some such in the not-too-distant future.

If I were an NHL owner I'd finally get off my duff, whack GB on the back and say - end this and let's get this franchise moved somewhere it stops sucking money from us - and maybe starts to send some back the other way! (But I don't think they're going to do that -- they still seem to think that GB and his 'cost certainty' is their saviour.)

The arena was built as part of a massive development, the type that sprung up all over markets in places like Arizona and Florida when everyone was convinced that the money would never run out. Was it a good decision? Well evidently not, but there is absolutely no way that it is actionable.