The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[billybob123]

I can understand why Glendale is desperate to keep the team. They built the arena for the Coyotes (I think, my history on this one might be way off) and some crappy Lacrosse team that folded a few years ago. If the Coyotes leave, then the city has a huge, high-priced arena, sitting empty. It's sort of the opposite to Oklahoma City - didn't they build an arena BEFORE having a team and had to try finding a team to move in (the Thunder finally did, but now Seattle is missing an NBA team).

That all being said, it seems idiotic to beat the dead horse to keep a team that can't draw 50% capacity. I don't get it.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by billybob123

That all being said, it seems idiotic to beat the dead horse to keep a team that can't draw 50% capacity. I don't get it.

Before the BK there was 13,000+ of a 17,500 arena.. 7 years removed from a playoff berth.. sounds pretty standard?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Wow, care to read my post? I even quoted what was illegal about it. Jesus Christ, I had no idea the pro-Phoenix camp was this thick.

The report suggests there might be $50 million in CoG bond sales directed to Hulsizer's purchase. To GWI, it doesn't matter if it's $100 million or $50 million - it's still an illegal subsidy and it will be challenged.

Did you read your post? Because the one I responded to was four words.

At least you've made it clear what you're actually arguing, that GWI thinks it's illegal and therefore it is. Humorous really, one side says it's illegal, one side says it's legal, both have legal opinions backing their stance (although one sides come from outside legal counsel and one is doing it in house and has an agenda, although that doesn't change the fact that either could be right) and yet you have decided that GWI is correct. Any particular reason why that argument is so clearly correct? You're well versed in Arizona's gift clause law I assume? Get your LLM in it?

The point being that this isn't cut and dry, it could be perfectly legal or it could be a slam dunk for GWI. Acting like it's clearly one way or the other is nonsense.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Before the BK there was 13,000+ of a 17,500 arena.. 7 years removed from a playoff berth.. sounds pretty standard?

Challenge is the tickets are currently sold at less than standard NHL price.

Would be curious to see what happens when the price is raised.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

Care to provide an actual argument, or is this yet another case of you not actually knowing what you're talking about and instead parroting what you read somewhere on the internet?

Care to have one debate without personal attacks?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

If Winnipeg was really getting a team, they'd have announced it by now.

I don't think the NHL would want to announce a relocation during the playoffs or to a much lesser extent while the Moose are still in the hunt for the Calder. Not to say that they will move but I think they're (The NHL's) preferred timing of such an annoucement would be the first Friday afternoon after the final game of the SCF.

As an aside... why didn't the city just buy the team? I mean 116M (Initial Bond number) + 25M (set aside for the NHL) + all the money that they've spent on legal fees + the arena management cost savings (97M less expenses). That's gotta be at least close to the Hulsizer deal... or is there a law in Arizona that precludes that? I mean at least with that deal they'd be getting an asset that they could sell if no suitable ownership group were to arise instead of just a bunch of lost money.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Care to have one debate without personal attacks?

Where was the personal attack? He's not making an argument, he's just parroting GWI without actually saying why he thinks there position is correct. That's what I called out. That's not a personal attack.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

Where was the personal attack? He's not making an argument, he's just parroting GWI without actually saying why he thinks there position is correct. That's what I called out. That's not a personal attack.

yet another case of you not actually knowing what you're talking about

Come on, you're smarter than that. Yesterday you called the entire state of Kansas stupid. Unnecessary.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by valo403

Did you read your post? Because the one I responded to was four words.

At least you've made it clear what you're actually arguing, that GWI thinks it's illegal and therefore it is. Humorous really, one side says it's illegal, one side says it's legal, both have legal opinions backing their stance (although one sides come from outside legal counsel and one is doing it in house and has an agenda, although that doesn't change the fact that either could be right) and yet you have decided that GWI is correct. Any particular reason why that argument is so clearly correct? You're well versed in Arizona's gift clause law I assume? Get your LLM in it?

... you're kidding, right? I said "And it's illegal. Again." and quoted the article snippit about the $50 million in bonds, and because you somehow failed to extrapolate the context in which I was saying it, now I'm the one to blame? I'm positive you didn't just start reading the thread two pages ago. This point has been brought up repeatedly.

Any reason why I think GWI is right? Well, clearly there wouldn't be so much trouble surrounding these bonds if someone could confidently come out and definitively say they are within the confines of the law. And I don't think the GWI would be putting the time and resources into this that they are if it wasn't illegal. You can see that Glendale is acting from a position of desperation, and you can't say it's unheard of for governments to bend/break the rules when push comes to shove. Only this time, someone is keeping them in check, and Glendale doesn't like it very much.

Yeah, actually, I did get my LLM in the State of Arizona. Twice. I was going to do it three times and then decided that it's a completely ridiculous sentiment to argue that "You don't have a law degree, therefore your opinion is invalid" when you're having a discussion on a message board that, if lucky, has no more practicing lawyers on it than you could count on one hand.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... you're kidding, right? I said "And it's illegal. Again." and quoted the article snippit about the $50 million in bonds, and because you somehow failed to extrapolate the context in which I was saying it, now I'm the one to blame? I'm positive you didn't just start reading the thread two pages ago. This point has been brought up repeatedly.

Any reason why I think GWI is right? Well, clearly there wouldn't be so much trouble surrounding these bonds if someone could confidently come out and definitively say they are within the confines of the law. And I don't think the GWI would be putting the time and resources into this that they are if it wasn't illegal. You can see that Glendale is acting from a position of desperation, and you can't say it's unheard of for governments to bend/break the rules when push comes to shove. Only this time, someone is keeping them in check, and Glendale doesn't like it very much.

Yeah, actually, I did get my LLM in the State of Arizona. Twice. I was going to do it three times and then decided that it's a completely ridiculous sentiment to argue that "You don't have a law degree, therefore your opinion is invalid" when you're having a discussion on a message board that, if lucky, has no more practicing lawyers on it than you could count on one hand.

As to the first point, people have, hence the legal opinions that CoG has saying just that. Are those people absolutely correct? Of course not, they could certainly be wrong, there's no certainty until a court says there is. As to the second point, I completely disagree. GWI's mandate is to limit government spending, their actions here are effective in that regard. Whether they actually believe the deal is illegal or not their involvement has effectively killed the bond issuance. I don't really buy the argument that certain GWI members are acting out of self interest (namely the whole association to the D-Backs), but they are certainly acting to further the goals of the organization.

As to the last paragraph, my point was simply that unless this is something your well versed in speaking in absolutes doesn't make sense. Neither of us know for sure whether this deal is legal.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, actually, I did get my LLM in the State of Arizona. Twice. I was going to do it three times and then decided that it's a completely ridiculous sentiment to argue that "You don't have a law degree, therefore your opinion is invalid" when you're having a discussion on a message board that, if lucky, has no more practicing lawyers on it than you could count on one hand.

Having an uninformed opinion predicated entirely upon taking the side that you desperately hope prevails is pretty much invalid.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

yet another case of you not actually knowing what you're talking about

Come on, you're smarter than that. Yesterday you called the entire state of Kansas stupid. Unnecessary.

First, if you can't see that yesterday's comment was tongue in cheek I'm not sure what to do. Heck, other people from Kansas saw that quite clearly.

In this case I'm getting sick of hearing certain posters shift things around time and time again to suit their argument. Pro-Winnipeg = absolutely correct every single time.

[Parallex]

I dunno, if the GWI has an official city document that unambigously states that the city owns the parking rights... well that sounds like a pretty significant blow to the legal argument for any financing scheme that involves bonds based on everything we've heard unless they can find some thing else of reasonable value that the team can provide the city in order to back said bonds.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I dunno, if the GWI has an official city document that unambigously states that the city owns the parking rights... well that sounds like a pretty significant blow to the legal argument for any financing scheme that involves bonds based on everything we've heard unless they can find some thing else of reasonable value that the team can provide the city in order to back said bonds.

It certainly would be, but there are still 'ifs' involved there. GWI could have something that they interpret to say x when in reality it says y. Heck, GWI could have a document they know says y and are saying it says x as a means to gain more backing. Both sides are playing the game here, both have their own agendas, and neither seem to be overly concerned with fighting completely fair.

[Muta]

Why can't Hulsizer just, you know... purchase the team with his own money?

Oh wait, he doesn't have it.

I cringe when I think how this team will be financially managed given what's transpired so far. The NHL is peddling off the Coyotes franchise like a cheap hooker. This sale shouldn't be this complicated and extravagant.

THe NHL has such a hard-on for Phoenix it's almost embarassing.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Why can't Hulsizer just, you know... purchase the team with his own money?

Oh wait, he doesn't have it.

He doesn't have it? Since when?

There is a difference between not having it and not wanting to spend it.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Having an uninformed opinion predicated entirely upon taking the side that you desperately hope prevails is pretty much invalid.

Funny thing is that I actually did take Law (my initial desire was to be a lawyer) so my opinion is probably one of the more "informed" around here - that said, I'm not about to start calling people out for not having any legal background in a discussion such as this one.

The law is open to interpretation which is why we can have this discussion in the first place, and there have been cases I've studied where the legal mind in me says outcome 'x' is correct but the courts ruled with outcome 'y'. Wouldn't be the first time, certainly wouldn't be the last.

Originally Posted by valo403

In this case I'm getting sick of hearing certain posters shift things around time and time again to suit their argument. Pro-Winnipeg = absolutely correct every single time.

I could turn around and say that Pro-Phoenix = absolutely delusional every single time (and I'd be wrong - with the exception of Bouw, who must be actively overdosing on happy pills every time he posts).

I don't shift things around. I have maintained the same position since this debacle began.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by moon

He doesn't have it? Since when?

There is a difference between not having it and not wanting to spend it.

Here lies the problem I have with it all. If I can't afford something, I shouldn't own it, if I can afford it but choose not to spend my money on it, then I shouldn't have it either. IF he was going to be a committed owner, he would put his money into it, not rely on a handout from the city to buy it.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Here lies the problem I have with it all. If I can't afford something, I shouldn't own it, if I can afford it but choose not to spend my money on it, then I shouldn't have it either. IF he was going to be a committed owner, he would put his money into it, not rely on a handout from the city to buy it.

I feel the same way about people who buy cars and don't maintain them. I agree with this. You need to spend money on something like this to make it a success. You can't do the bare minimum and expect results. If the Islanders spent money to build a team properly and invest in its future, you can bet people would think twice before throwing their tickets into the Hudson River.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by billybob123

history on this one might be way off) and some crappy Lacrosse team that folded a few years ago. .

Their lacrosse team was actually pretty good. They only left the league because no CBA was reached and the year was to be "cancelled" Then came to a last min agreement and Arizona wasn't able to get all their eggs in a basket so they folded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Sting