The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[troutman]

Bettman admits Coyotes deal out of his hands

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...117582273.html

"The league is only the selling party," said Bettman. "This deal is between the prospective buyer and the City of Glendale. It’s up to them."

"It’s become increasingly clear to me the Goldwater Institute can be very obstructionist. In light of their conduct in this matter, I question whether this is really an organization that is concerned with the public interest despite a mission statement that calls for free enterprise," said Bettman. "I quite frankly don’t know who the people there report to or are accountable to but it fascinates me that whoever is running the Goldwater Institute can substitute their judgment for that of the Glendale city council. In effect, they’re over-turning a duly enacted resolution in the city and one that was enacted in public session.

"Without actually filing a lawsuit, Goldwater is having its way simply by threatening. I’m not even sure they think they have a good lawsuit. We are told two independent law firms looked at this and said the transaction is legal under Arizona law."

"I requested a meeting today with (Goldwater CEO) Darcy Olsen and I was told no but I could have a joint news conference. This situation is far too serious for such game-playing," said Bettman. "My hope is somehow Goldwater and Glendale can find a way to get this done promptly. So where does this leave us. We’re not yet done. We haven’t given up and we’re not giving up. Our commitment remains as strong as ever but time is running out."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by valo403

How are people still under the impression that the Balsille issue is about ego? The guy tried to sue his way into the league, has shown no interest in anything but his own well being, and has just generally made it quite clear that he does not play well with others. Why would anyone want to accept a guy like that into the fold?

Not only that, but his way of trying to get the Coyotes would have destroyed any semblance of control over team locations. Basically, if Balsillie won, the Flames could pull up and move anywhere they want tomorrow. No notice, no vote.

And this was after he started selling season tickets in Hamilton for a Nashville franchise he didn't yet own.

Balsillie would have been entertaining, but he was bad news for the league - not Bettman, the league. And for those wondering why Bettman hasn't been fired over this, it is because he, Daly, and a battalion of lawyers beat back a threat that was considered so significant the other big four leagues got involved.

People allow their hatred of Bettman and Balsillie's slick sales pitch to overrule logic. As much as I would have loved to have seen Balsillie on the Leafs doorstep, the cost to the league was too high.

[transplant99]

"I quite frankly don’t know who the people there report to or are accountable to but it fascinates me that whoever is running the Goldwater Institute can substitute their judgment for that of the Glendale city council. In effect, they’re over-turning a duly enacted resolution in the city and one that was enacted in public session.

That's the part of this I dont get at all.

How does a private (non-elected) enterprise with a clear agenda, over-rule (by use of threat) elected officials of the public?

It's assinine and a really frightening precedent IMO.

I don't care one way or the other where the team plays or even if it plays, but seeing this kind of outside interfence happen to a publicly elected board is really bothersome.

[Resolute 14]

It's Arizona. I'm not sure there is a more effed up state in the union.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's the part of this I dont get at all.

How does a private (non-elected) enterprise with a clear agenda, over-rule (by use of threat) elected officials of the public?

It's assinine and a really frightening precedent IMO.

I don't care one way or the other where the team plays or even if it plays, but seeing this kind of outside interfence happen to a publicly elected board is really bothersome.

I don't know if GWI is right, but they are saying the bond sale is an illegal gift. Shouldn't public officials be held accountable for illegal actions? Wouldn't that be more frightening if elected bodies could ignore the law?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's Arizona. I'm not sure there is a more effed up state in the union.

Texas says hi

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/texas.sonogram/

sorry for the derail

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's the part of this I dont get at all.

How does a private (non-elected) enterprise with a clear agenda, over-rule (by use of threat) elected officials of the public?

It's assinine and a really frightening precedent IMO.

I don't care one way or the other where the team plays or even if it plays, but seeing this kind of outside interfence happen to a publicly elected board is really bothersome.

Publicaly elected officials have to abide by the law and in Arizona that means not giving away tax money to billionaires in an attempt to keep an ill considered stadium rented.

[ogre2010]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's the part of this I dont get at all.

How does a private (non-elected) enterprise with a clear agenda, over-rule (by use of threat) elected officials of the public?

It's assinine and a really frightening precedent IMO.

I don't care one way or the other where the team plays or even if it plays, but seeing this kind of outside interfence happen to a publicly elected board is really bothersome.

But that's the other side of the arguement the publicly elected officials are pledging public money to fund a privately owned franchise for someone else. Oh and they're buying parking rights they already own. I'm over simplifying this probably but that's the gist I get from it

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know if GWI is right, but they are saying the bond sale is an illegal gift. Shouldn't public officials be held accountable for illegal actions? Wouldn't that be more frightening if elected bodies could ignore the law?

Sure, but I dont see that at all here....not a bit.

Its a bond issue...this happens on a regular basis all over the US. What this group is doing is trying to manipulate how a city conducts its business and even moreso if the following statement is true...

We are told two independent law firms looked at this and said the transaction is legal under Arizona law."

The fact that they are threatening a lawsuit over somethng as common as a bond issue by a municipality that has ben deemed legal says a whole bunch. They are clearly a political action group that is not elected yet is affecting the way elected officials do their job. That's not cool.

Again i dont care either way on this thing, but if this was happening in canada where a private group was affecting the existance of a hockey teams location based purely on threats of a lawsuit, people would be having seizues about it from St. John to Nanaimo.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Publicaly elected officials have to abide by the law and in Arizona that means not giving away tax money to billionaires in an attempt to keep an ill considered stadium rented.

Ill considered or not, the stadium is there for good.

Now, if the team moves, that becomes an even bigger boon-doggle for the public as they have no anchor tenant to pay for it.

How does this help taxpayers again?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure, but I dont see that at all here....not a bit.

Its a bond issue...this happens on a regular basis all over the US. What this group is doing is trying to manipulate how a city conducts its business and even moreso if the following statement is true...



The fact that they are threatening a lawsuit over somethng as common as a bond issue by a municipality that has ben deemed legal says a whole bunch. They are clearly a political action group that is not elected yet is affecting the way elected officials do their job. That's not cool.

Again i dont care either way on this thing, but if this was happening in canada where a private group was affecting the existance of a hockey teams location based purely on threats of a lawsuit, people would be having seizues about it from St. John to Nanaimo.

Its not a commen bond issue, it's backed by a questionable estimate of parking revenues, if they won't pay it back it will require tax revenue to pay off which is illegal under Arizona law.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Its not a commen bond issue, it's backed by a questionable estimate of parking revenues, if they won't pay it back it will require tax revenue to pay off which is illegal under Arizona law.

What IF they do? Then it's possible that the CoG loses a tenant that would save taxpayers a whole whack of money moving forward....what does GWI do then?

I understand the estimates being bandied about are under scrutiny, and if they are wrong then no bond issue should happen or they will quickly find themselves in junk status.

However, that simply is not the case at this point and CoG can only go with what is in front of them, not on some politically driven group's desire to run interfence without proof either way.

I have no dog in this fight so to speak and am completely void of emotion about it either way. In fact, if you dont live in Winnipeg or QC or Phoenix or anywhere that this would directly affect things, Im not sure why anyone would care all that much about it. The team will play somewhere next year and someone elses money will be paying for it, that much is true. Beyond that the opponent for the Flames whether they be based on either side of the border is just that...an opponent.

[SILVERBACK13]

gary is claiming that Goldwater is acting against the public's interest. How many people turned out to rally, or support the team.

This team could have been in Canada by now and making money.

Lets start our own canada league...maybe turn the Stanley Cup into Champions League format

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How does this help taxpayers again?

At face value I imagine the rational is that they're saving the taxpayer the tax revenue loss incurred by misestimates of the parking revenues used to back the municipal bond (ye ol' throwing good money after bad).

Frankly I don't see why the City didn't just refer the question as to whether the deal is constitutional to an Arizona court at the onset and avoid the whole pissing contest with GWI to begin with (or can they do that? I know gov't has done that in Canada). I mean it's not like anyone wouldn't have seen this coming a mile away given all that's happened over the past several years.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Parallex

At face value I imagine the rational is that they're saving the taxpayer the tax revenue loss incurred by misestimates of the parking revenues used to back the municipal bond (ye ol' throwing good money after bad).

Frankly I don't see why the City didn't just refer the question as to whether the deal is constitutional to an Arizona court at the onset and avoid the whole pissing contest with GWI to begin with (or can they do that? I know gov't has done that in Canada). I mean it's not like anyone wouldn't have seen this coming a mile away given all that's happened over the past several years.

My guess is their own lawyers told them they would probably lose.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What IF they do? Then it's possible that the CoG loses a tenant that would save taxpayers a whole whack of money moving forward....what does GWI do then?

I understand the estimates being bandied about are under scrutiny, and if they are wrong then no bond issue should happen or they will quickly find themselves in junk status.

However, that simply is not the case at this point and CoG can only go with what is in front of them, not on some politically driven group's desire to run interfence without proof either way.

I have no dog in this fight so to speak and am completely void of emotion about it either way. In fact, if you dont live in Winnipeg or QC or Phoenix or anywhere that this would directly affect things, Im not sure why anyone would care all that much about it. The team will play somewhere next year and someone elses money will be paying for it, that much is true. Beyond that the opponent for the Flames whether they be based on either side of the border is just that...an opponent.

The arguement as to whether the law makes sense is seperate from the arguement as to whether it makes sense to keep the coyotes by issuing bonds.

The GWI is a right wing advocacy group that is doing exactly what its supporters and a huge chunk of the population want, regardless of what that does to the city.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How does a private (non-elected) enterprise with a clear agenda, over-rule (by use of threat) elected officials of the public? .

Not sure what you mean by 'over-rule'. That is not what is happening. GI is a private think-tank dedicated (so they say) to protecting taxpayer rights.

The CoG is spending taxpayer money to assist a private enterprise in acquiring control of a team and an arena. (Actually they're not - they're borrowing money in order to do so, but in order to pay it back they have to spend taxpayer money. Similar, but there is a distinction.)

GI alleges that the parking revenue to which the CoG is entitled is insufficient to repay the debt plus interest.

Taxpayer money will fund the (alleged) deficiency. That could, under AZ law, be considered as 'conferring a gift from a public body to a private body' - something that is illegal under their law.

Definitely oversimplified, but this is little different than any watchdog group coming out and saying that they don't like some part of public policy.

Where it gets sticky is that GI said, during the period that CoG was trying to float the bond issue, that they might sue. That had two apparent effects, at least: it drove the interest rate up and it drove potential purchasers of the bonds away (so the CoG alleges). THAT could be construed as a form of interference, which, though not illegal, may be tortious interference.

(If your neighbour were selling his business to another neighbour and you went to the potential purchaser and said "the seller is a bum and shouldn't be trusted", you'd be in the same kind of position. You've interfered with someone else's business.) Or so CoG thinks apparently. And they believe that they can sue and win on that basis.

I don't know enough about AZ or US law to know whether *either* side could prevail - but it seems likely that GI could do enough to prevent the bond.

Although, in a delicious irony, it may be that the NHL chops the sale price by, oh, say fifty or sixty million, thereby costing each owner a couple of million. That'll make 'em happy with Gary, won't it?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know if GWI is right, but they are saying the bond sale is an illegal gift. Shouldn't public officials be held accountable for illegal actions? Wouldn't that be more frightening if elected bodies could ignore the law?

Yes they should, but Goldwater isn't doing that, they're flooding the market with rumors and threats and making no effort to back it up. They're blowhards with an agenda, nothing more.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Parallex

At face value I imagine the rational is that they're saving the taxpayer the tax revenue loss incurred by misestimates of the parking revenues used to back the municipal bond (ye ol' throwing good money after bad).

Frankly I don't see why the City didn't just refer the question as to whether the deal is constitutional to an Arizona court at the onset and avoid the whole pissing contest with GWI to begin with (or can they do that? I know gov't has done that in Canada). I mean it's not like anyone wouldn't have seen this coming a mile away given all that's happened over the past several years.

Nope. US Courts don't rule on hypotheticals.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

My guess is their own lawyers told them they would probably lose.

Your guess is stupid.

"Hey, if you do this, you will get sued and lose."
"Works for us, lets go with it."


Seriously dude. Try actually thinking about what you are saying. The fact that Goldwater has not yet brought suit, but is really only threatening, could just as easily mean that they aren't convinced they would win in court and so are hoping to use threats to get their way.

At worst, I suspect lawyers on both sides aren't sure of the legality. And in that case, both sides are trying to bluff the other in the hopes of winning without a costly and drawn out court battle.