The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hmm, if true, this puts the NHL in a pickle.

They want to keep the team in Phoenix, but they don't want to own it. I agree with Cowperson, Winnipeg is the solution of last resort. Are they finally down to the last resort?

True. Now the question is, is what some people are saying about Atlanta now being almost a done deal to Winnipeg is true? Or do they want to drag it out another year and have TNSE as leverage once again to urge local investors in Glendale to do something? As was said by one of the city council yesterday, "this is the last year I will vote yes on this"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is a difference between 'backing down' and choosing when and how to get involved though.

True, but Goldwater's MO throughout has been "If we think it is a gift, we believe it is illegal, and we will go after you." If they felt this new deal was as illegal as dissentowner desperately wishes to believe, GWI would already have the full court press going. The argument that they were acting in goodwill over the first deal defies logic, and strikes me as a case of people trying to invent an easy answer for a complicated problem. You believe the deal is illegal, but Goldwater isn't making a big issue of it. You need some means of rationalizing that disconnect. That is a danger of viewing everything in black and white.

It is a bad deal for Glendale taxpayers and the city is foolish to make it. But a bad deal is not necessarily illegal.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but Goldwater's MO throughout has been "If we think it is a gift, we believe it is illegal, and we will go after you." If they felt this new deal was as illegal as dissentowner desperately wishes to believe, GWI would already have the full court press going. The argument that they were acting in goodwill over the first deal defies logic, and strikes me as a case of people trying to invent an easy answer for a complicated problem. You believe the deal is illegal, but Goldwater isn't making a big issue of it. You need some means of rationalizing that disconnect. That is a danger of viewing everything in black and white.

It is a bad deal for Glendale taxpayers and the city is foolish to make it. But a bad deal is not necessarily illegal.

I think the initial 25 million could be couched in terms of team takeover management and ownership finders fee, I suspect the longer it goes on the harder that is to justify.

The GI has only just started to use the gift clause, their first success was a year before with a parking lot deal they managed to shoot down, but as such this is new territory for all concerned, it is possible they where less sure of themselves with the first 25 million.

It can also be a really good deal for the taxpayers and still illegal!

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Egg management fee?

[Vulcan]

IIRC last years $25M was supposed to be a loan which Hulsizer was supposed to cover when he took over the team. Hulsizer didn't so CG had to pay it out. The upcoming season has no deal in the works, so now it looks like an outright gift which the GI will probably look very closely at.
Conclusion is, this new deal is a different animal.

[Yasa]

I just want this to eeeeeennddddd. I don't care the outcome. Just please let it be over.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

IIRC last years $25M was supposed to be a loan which Hulsizer was supposed to cover when he took over the team. Hulsizer didn't so CG had to pay it out. The upcoming season has no deal in the works, so now it looks like an outright gift which the GI will probably look very closely at.
Conclusion is, this new deal is a different animal.

Last years pledge existed long before Hulsizer entered the picture.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The NHL will be dropping the puck at MTS Centre long before this Coyotes thing is resolved. A part of me thinks that the NHL might move this team to Kansas City (while continuing to own it) similar to MLB/Expos before it's ever fully resolved. Just my opinion, though.

I would agree that scenario is more likely to happen than a move to Winnipeg.

Cowperson

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Until the GWI files their lawsuit, the deal is clearly seen as illegal, and the city of Glendale won't be able to pay the $25M owed in this agreement. This is far from over. Go GWI!

I don't have a side in this but I've got to say that for someone who claims to be following the story, you don't have much of a grasp on reality.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is a bad deal for Glendale taxpayers and the city is foolish to make it. But a bad deal is not necessarily illegal.

I think that the GWI just sees the deal as a (another?) bad one and is using the constitutionality/legality of the situation as a tool to stop Glendale's council from making more bad deals.

The lawsuit/threat of a lawsuit is just a means to an end.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The original 6 ratio (when hockey worked) would be 9 in Canada and 18 in the US.

IMO the original 6 ratio also worked when 7/21 teams were in Canada.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I don't have a side in this but I've got to say that for someone who claims to be following the story, you don't have much of a grasp on reality.

Really? Care to explain the reality of situation then? Please enlighten me.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Really? Care to explain the reality of situation then? Please enlighten me.

I think it may have to do with your repeated claims that something is illegal when the fact is you have no idea if it is, and neither does anyone else.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think it may have to do with your repeated claims that something is illegal when the fact is you have no idea if it is, and neither does anyone else.

By the way the law reads imo it is clearly illegal. Explain to me how it could not be?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

By the way the law reads imo it is clearly illegal. Explain to me how it could not be?

Enlighten those who don't know or know where to look. What does the "law" read?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Enlighten those who don't know or know where to look. What does the "law" read?

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument..../const/9/7.htm

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

By the way the law reads imo it is clearly illegal. Explain to me how it could not be?

Well there we go then, case closed. You read the law and you decided it was illegal. You should call up GWI and volunteer your expert legal services.

I assume you have also read all the cases dealing with the law and the resulting interpretations, I mean that's basic research right? You're familiar with the legal meaning of all the terms of the law? You've reviewed all of the relevant documents, you understand their terms and the implications under the law?

I mean honestly, if that's the case congrats, if not, well you don't actually know anything.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument..../const/9/7.htm

Yup.

Section 7. Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.

Maybe one of the lawyers can explain the intention of the bold portion. To me, it reads 'You can't give away money unless, there's a good reason to.' -->Which must be decided by a court, which you are not.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well there we go then, case closed. You read the law and you decided it was illegal. You should call up GWI and volunteer your expert legal services.

I assume you have also read all the cases dealing with the law and the resulting interpretations, I mean that's basic research right? You're familiar with the legal meaning of all the terms of the law? You've reviewed all of the relevant documents, you understand their terms and the implications under the law?

I mean honestly, if that's the case congrats, if not, well you don't actually know anything.

Oh f---... seriously, can you cut this crap out already? If you want to respond to his post with your own opinions on the subject, please go right ahead, but no more of this "You're not a lawyer so nyah nyah you must be wrong" stuff. It's childish rubbish.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Oh f---... seriously, can you cut this crap out already? If you want to respond to his post with your own opinions on the subject, please go right ahead, but no more of this "You're not a lawyer so nyah nyah you must be wrong" stuff. It's childish rubbish.

Actually it's reality. Going around saying 'it's illegal it's illegal' is childish rubbish, and completely lacking any tie to the real world.

And for the record, I've said repeatedly that GWI (and by extension dissentowner) may well be right and this is illegal, but at this point nobody knows for certain, and nobody on this board knows enough to even make an educated guess on the matter. Heck, even the people with all of the relevant facts at their disposal are far from certain as to the outcome.