[News] UPD: City of Glendale to vote on new arena agreement with Coyotes

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...push/28795287/

Four Glendale City Council members who voted last week to rescind the city's $225 million agreement with the Arizona Coyotes are being targeted for recall.

No one saw this coming!

Arizona politics is so predictable. The City should have worked back channels to get something done. This was stupid and very public. This was certain to cause a backlash and recalls. Coyotes are on life support.

[Parallex]

Recalls? Really, what's the point... don't they have elections coming up right soon anyways?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Recalls? Really, what's the point... don't they have elections coming up right soon anyways?

Thought they just had their elections, actually. Could be wrong though.


And then there's this....

https://twitter.com/rwesthead/status/610801923751604224


Rick WestheadVerified account
‏@rwesthead
Coyotes believe city attorney Michael Bailey has given bad advice to council and that councillors will overturn their own vote today.

[troutman]

I think all along COG's goal was to force IA to the table for re-negotiation. I assume they would accept a lease that paid IA $7.5 M rather than $15 M annually. Can IA operate at that amount? How confident are they that they can enforce the existing lease?

City Attorney Michael Bailey said late Tuesday that the city was not going to "litigate in the press" but it will be releasing more information to bolster its conflict-of-interest allegations.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...push/28795287/

Why would IA want to stay in AZ, when they can make a $200 M profit right now? The answer could be that IA are just dummy custodial owners, and it is the NHL that is really calling the shots (and they want to be in AZ for TV deal reasons).

[GioforPM]

I'm not sure how the conflict of interest allegation can void the deal. Really wouldn't it just be a claim against the lawyer? Is there some obscure AZ law which has a bearing on this?

Here if I papered a deal even though I had a conflict, unless there was something else wrong with the deal, it wouldn't be voided. I'd be in trouble with the LSA.

[troutman]

Michael Nowels ‏@michaelnowels Int asst city mgr T. Duensing: not abt hockey. Willing to negotiate. Obligation to law. Believe in case. Won't litigate thru media #Coyotes

Rob Schumacher ‏@RobSchumacher1 Interim Assit. City Mgr Tom Duensing #Glendale will pursue its legal case against the #Coyotes after council exec mtg

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure how the conflict of interest allegation can void the deal. Really wouldn't it just be a claim against the lawyer? Is there some obscure AZ law which has a bearing on this?

Here if I papered a deal even though I had a conflict, unless there was something else wrong with the deal, it wouldn't be voided. I'd be in trouble with the LSA.

There is some obscure Arizona law. That was the councils basis for cancelling the deal. Now they are saying they got bad advice from their lawyers.

[northcrunk]

The council got a rough ride during the vote as a bunch of vocal coyotes fans showed up to shame them.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not sure how the conflict of interest allegation can void the deal. Really wouldn't it just be a claim against the lawyer? Is there some obscure AZ law which has a bearing on this?

Here if I papered a deal even though I had a conflict, unless there was something else wrong with the deal, it wouldn't be voided. I'd be in trouble with the LSA.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/38/00511.htm

A. The state, its political subdivisions or any department or agency of either may, within three years after its execution, cancel any contract, without penalty or further obligation, made by the state, its political subdivisions, or any of the departments or agencies of either if any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract on behalf of the state, its political subdivisions or any of the departments or agencies of either is, at any time while the contract or any extension of the contract is in effect, an employee or agent of any other party to the contract in any capacity or a consultant to any other party of the contract with respect to the subject matter of the contract.

Glendale still has to provide "written notice" of its intent to cancel the contract.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

There is some obscure Arizona law. That was the councils basis for cancelling the deal. Now they are saying they got bad advice from their lawyers.

I just read it - what a weird law. No private company gets the benefit of such a provision. And it only works one way (the contract isn't voided if a counterparty lawyer becomes a city lawyer later).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/38/00511.htm

A. The state, its political subdivisions or any department or agency of either may, within three years after its execution, cancel any contract, without penalty or further obligation, made by the state, its political subdivisions, or any of the departments or agencies of either if any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract on behalf of the state, its political subdivisions or any of the departments or agencies of either is, at any time while the contract or any extension of the contract is in effect, an employee or agent of any other party to the contract in any capacity or a consultant to any other party of the contract with respect to the subject matter of the contract.

Glendale still has to provide "written notice" of its intent to cancel the contract.

That definitely hurts the mobility of any city/state lawyer in AZ. Unless there is more, even if the city/state lawyer was fired, he or she may not be employable by a company or law firm that did business with the city. Ridiculous.

[GioforPM]

They key in the case is "significantly" as I understand it. also "with respect to the subject matter of the contract". The lawyer wasn't really involved as I understand it.

If so, it really meakes them look weak and desperate.

[troutman]

Coyotes pre-season schedule released:

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=771123

Too late I think for the team to move this year. But, no games booked for Glendale until Oct. 2. 108 days.

[GioforPM]

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/sto...coyotes-061015

Per the statute, Glendale must prove that Tindall was involved in creating the current arena lease agreement.
"One of the words that they will need to focus on in that statute is the word 'significantly,'" said Rodney Smith, director of the sports law and business program at ASU's Sandra Day O'Connor College of law. "They're going to have to prove that he had a significant level of involvement and I think it will be a very uphill battle for the City of Glendale."
Tindall left the city well before negotiations with Renaissance Sports & Entertainment (now IceArizona) began on the arena lease agreement in late May. However, Glendale kept Tindall on a six-month retainer and he was paid his full salary through September 2013, so the city likely will argue he served a role in creating the lease agreement.
Two sources familiar with the situation said Tindall had no role in drafting the current agreement, although it is similar to one he helped draft when Greg Jamison attempted to buy the team. One source said Tindall had a limited role as an advisor on the current agreement.
In November 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona concerning Tindall. Lieberman alleged Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while he was still paid the Glendale severance. The State Bar dismissed that claim.
"The fact that there was a complaint and the State Bar found no violations can be very persuasive. But the statute only says that there has to be conflict of interest," said Monica Lindstrom, KTAR's legal analyst. "If council can show any kind of fraud on the part of Coyotes or IceArizona or Tindall then its case strengthens."

I wonder if this law has been litigated before, to see what level of involvement is necessary.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

Coyotes pre-season schedule released:

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=771123

Too late I think for the team to move this year. But, no games booked for Glendale until Oct. 2. 108 days.

They will certainly get an injunction to prevent the termination for 2015-16. Like Northlands getting one stopping Edmonton from leaving.

[GioforPM]

Oh, they did: http://www.brandonsun.com/sports/bre...431.html?thx=y

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Oh, they did: http://www.brandonsun.com/sports/bre...431.html?thx=y

It is temporary. COG has a return hearing June 29th to try to set it aside.

We only have seen IA's evidence on the clause. COG is hinting they have more ammunition. They may have other common law grounds for voiding the contract (ex. misrepresentation).

[automaton 3]

I wouldn't say weak and desperate...I think the City of Glendale has finally found some game.

From reading around, who knows what information is accurate but there appears to be enough smoke to the allegations that I have trouble seeing a Judge dispensing with this summarily...discovery would likely be required and there appears to be all kinds of loose threads hanging that are just begging to be tugged at to see what falls out.

IA and the NHL probably do not want their internal workings laid bare for review. I think there enough risk and uncertainty here from their standpoint, plus the time pressures of potentially having to find a home for next season that some sort of settlement with the City is probably their best option for the short term. This may have been the City's goal all along.

However they are poisoning the waters a bit with their media comments with respect to City officials. Their Plan A appeared to be attempting to rally enough support to force the City to retract, but that seems to have failed so far.

[troutman]

Coyotes will eye other cities if team loses lawsuit

http://www.tsn.ca/coyotes-will-eye-o...wsuit-1.310073

Arizona Coyotes officials will explore relocation if the team loses a legal battle with the city of Glendale, an NHL source confirmed to TSN.

The source said team officials believe they can raise the cash required to pay other NHL team owners a relocation fee after an ownership shakeup this week.

An NHL governor told TSN that it's hard to predict the price of a relocation fee, and said it would probably depend on the market to which the Coyotes' owners are looking to relocate.


Before Tuesday's meeting, Glendale Vice Mayor Ian Hugh said he supports Bailey.

"If I didn't believe him, I wouldn't have voted to void the contract," Hugh said. "I have confidence in our legal department."

An NHL source dismissed the possibility that the Coyotes might return to the U.S. Airways Center this year.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I wonder if this law has been litigated before, to see what level of involvement is necessary.

From what I have read - but not from anyone with local legal background - it has not.

Originally Posted by troutman

Coyotes will eye other cities if team loses lawsuit

http://www.tsn.ca/coyotes-will-eye-o...wsuit-1.310073

And there's the big threat the team has against Glendale.

Also, I read that article on wanting to keep the team in Phoenix for TV purposes. However, I think that argument carries far less weight today with the long-term NBC deal, and will carry even less once Vegas comes into the league.