HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Arizona Coyotes (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   Speculation: Ownership Saga:Glendale City Council passes Phoenix Coyotes arena deal (Read post #1) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1455599)

mouser 06-27-2013 09:25 PM

Ownership Saga:Glendale City Council passes Phoenix Coyotes arena deal (Read post #1)
 
Same guidelines are in effect from the last thread:

1) We have a thread to discuss the Coyotes ownership situation. But for very few circumstances, discussion of the ownership situation in other threads is off-topic and will be deleted. It will likely also come with infractions and thread bans.

2) Dissent is allowed and even encouraged. But be civil. You can disagree without being disagreeable. You can attack posts but not posters. Play nice. I know there is a lot of tension, but don't make it worse.

3) If you deem something to be trolling or incendiary or anything like that, don't reduce yourself to that level. Report the offending post and don't respond to it.

4) This is a board for Coyotes fans. If what you've come here to post will just rile people up without adding much or anything to the conversation, your post will likely be deleted and you could find yourself with a threadban or an infraction. If you'd like to discuss this topic through a different lens, try the Business of Hockey board.

Naurutger 06-27-2013 09:34 PM

Quote:

"@78avik: Join the Hunt! Coyotes, Glendale and RSE!"
From Avik Dey, lesser known member of RSE.

Sinurgy 06-27-2013 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rt (Post 68117121)
Haha. That was also true of the Jamison deal. Then his financing fell through. Hulsizer's deal looked pretty well wrapped up too. Then the GWI set fire to it. Then there's the old grandpas rolling around with petitions. Will those factors arise again? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody saw them coming then, however. I'm sure there is something nobody sees coming now that will show up and throw a wrench in the gears. It's too contentious. It's too crappy of a deal. There are so many factors that want to kill this thing. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

A YES vote is cause for celebration. NO means certain and immediate death of the market. A YES provides some hope. However, if you think a YES vote on Tuesday means that the team will remain for five more seasons, with no doubts about it, you'll be disappointed when things inevitably continue to drag on and complicate.

That was the point I was attempting to make a month ago when people were acting like this thing is suddenly predictable. It's been ****ing chaos from the start, it's not even remotely a stretch to assume that will continue. I mean maybe this is finally the end but then again would anyone really be that surprised if it's not?! It's the damnedest thing and I will say this, if the Coyotes make it out of this thing and stay here, no fan base in the NHL will feel as much joy from a cup win as the Coyotes fan base would. You can't appreciate sweet until you've had sour and no one has tasted sour on the level of Coyotes fans.

IPreferPi 06-27-2013 11:15 PM

Mark Curtis interviewed Weiers on 12 News earlier today; he obviously isn't at all pleased by the NHL's and RSE's pressure on Glendale for expedited passage of the deal. Obviously the best exchange was

Quote:

Curtis: Do you feel that the NHL has a gun to your head?
Weiers: More like a bazooka
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2514294653001

I think he's firmly in the "no" column. But, unlike Alvarez, he's being very reasonable and articulate about his position - can't really fault him for it given the financial details and the history of this protracted, sordid affair.

But then again, we really can't anticipate how the Council will behave until Tuesday night. I'm sure Bettman/Daly will be in town and Yotes supporters will be in attendance. Very easy for someone to crack when the chips are down.

coyotes 06-27-2013 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPreferPi (Post 68122605)
Mark Curtis interviewed Weiers on 12 News earlier today; he obviously isn't at all pleased by the NHL's and RSE's pressure on Glendale for expedited passage of the deal. Obviously the best exchange was



http://www.azcentral.com/video/2514294653001

I think he's firmly in the "no" column. But, unlike Alvarez, he's being very reasonable and articulate about his position - can't really fault him for it given the financial details and the history of this protracted, sordid affair.

But then again, we really can't anticipate how the Council will behave until Tuesday night. I'm sure Bettman/Daly will be in town and Yotes supporters will be in attendance. Very easy for someone to crack when the chips are down.

I think if the vote ultimately comes down to the Mayor, I don't think he will vote No. While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes. I think the Mayor recognizes it's political suicide to be the person recognized for killing the Coyotes deal.

cobra427 06-28-2013 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotes (Post 68123601)
I think if the vote ultimately comes down to the Mayor, I don't think he will vote No. While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes. I think the Mayor recognizes it's political suicide to be the person recognized for killing the Coyotes deal.

I totally agree with this, at the end of the day if the mayor decides, he votes yes. I have watched the video, and he wants time and citizens to see it. I still think this will pass...If he was dead set against it, he would have said, "I am voting no and lobbying everyone else to vote no, no matter what, this is a bad deal".

coyotes 06-28-2013 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobra427 (Post 68124359)
I totally agree with this, at the end of the day if the mayor decides, he votes yes. I have watched the video, and he wants time and citizens to see it. I still think this will pass...If he was dead set against it, he would have said, "I am voting no and lobbying everyone else to vote no, no matter what, this is a bad deal".

Agreed! He could have said "I support the Coyotes and want to reach a deal. However, I don't support the agreement in it's current form and will vote no. This is why we need more time to come to an agreement that works for both sides" I think he is posturing. Politicians are self preservationists. He is not going to hang his career on this one vote.

Brodie 06-28-2013 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebranded Fan (Post 68117121)
From Avik Dey, lesser known member of RSE.

interesting note from the Arizona Republic... aside from the core 4 investors, who will remain RSE, the group is now known as IceArizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...x-coyotes.html

XX 06-28-2013 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotes (Post 68123601)
While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes.

There's no evidence of this. Actually, if the polls on AZcentral were anything to go by, the majority of people in Glendale have concerns about the deal. Everyone likes a free lunch. Too bad there's nothing free about paying the Coyotes $15m a year.

Sinurgy 06-28-2013 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XX (Post 68126767)
There's no evidence of this. Actually, if the polls on AZcentral were anything to go by, the majority of people in Glendale have concerns about the deal. Everyone likes a free lunch. Too bad there's nothing free about paying the Coyotes $15m a year.

I wouldn't go by polls on AZcentral for anything.

coyotes 06-28-2013 01:27 AM

Kudos to Jones for calling out Giblin and his nauseating anti-Coyotes slant in every one of his articles. I can't believe the Republic allows this clown to write for them. There is absolutely no journalistic integrity to his articles. Even Dan Bickley appears objective compared to Giblin. It seems like with every positive development, Giblin puts a negative spin and tries to make it seem like the harbinger of doom. When this deal finally gets approved, I wonder what Giblin will do then?

IPreferPi 06-28-2013 01:15 PM

From today in the Globe and Mail

Quote:

There is an interesting name in the mix with Gosbee and LeBlanc. Former NHL goaltender Mike Vernon is a Calgary native and a close friend of Gosbee, who is a Calgary financier. Vernon said he is not an investor at this point but is helping out with advice and may take a role in the Coyotes’ hockey and business operations if the arena lease is approved. “We’ll see,” he said.

If IceArizona gets the team, Gosbee and LeBlanc want to recruit more investors among the large group of Albertans who winter in the Phoenix area. Vernon, who is an affable fellow, would be a big help in that regard.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle12883834/

coyotes 06-28-2013 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinurgy (Post 68127123)
I wouldn't go by polls on AZcentral for anything.

And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort. That is 10% of the number of voters in the previous election (69,558). For a city of 230,000 people, it doesn't make sense that they couldn't acquire 7,000 signatures if indeed the majority of Glendale was opposed to a deal. I think we can safely say the majority were not opposed to a deal. XX can say whatever he wants but actions speak louder than words and the people spoke by not signing it.

goyotes 06-28-2013 01:26 PM

I don't know whether the average Glendale Joe favors this deal or not. One thing I would like to ask the CoG council relates to their comments about risk. I would like them to articulate how they do not continue to have risk on the arena if they don't do this deal with RSE. Saying the risk is limited to $6.5M is not really true. They rely upon revenue to service the bonds, and attendance to funnel other sales tax revenue to Westgate. If they are left with an unproductive asset in the form of an arena that limps forward with 20 - 30 events a year, with an average of less than 10,000 people, what does that cost the CoG going forward?

I know Pollack did a study a couple years ago. He concluded that the City was worse off by a couple mill if the Coyotes left. Wonder if the CoG has a response to my risk question....

rt 06-28-2013 01:42 PM

If that weren't a concern, they'd have shown the NHL the door months ago.

RR 06-28-2013 02:10 PM

If anyone wants updates from today's 1:30 pm COG council meeting this guy will be tweeting from the meeting

Quote:

Hello everyone. I'll be live-tweeting today's City Council workshop concerning the #Coyotes at 1:30 PM."]
COG meeting

pacdunes 06-28-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotes (Post 68147975)
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort. That is 10% of the number of voters in the previous election (69,558). For a city of 230,000 people, it doesn't make sense that they couldn't acquire 7,000 signatures if indeed the majority of Glendale was opposed to a deal. I think we can safely say the majority were not opposed to a deal. XX can say whatever he wants but actions speak louder than words and the people spoke by not signing it.

now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you? :handclap:

letsgoavs1921 06-28-2013 02:32 PM

The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

Jakey53 06-28-2013 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgoavs1921 (Post 68152843)
The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

We are talking about the COG. NO BRAINER!

Jakey53 06-28-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacdunes (Post 68151301)
now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you? :handclap:

They can't.:)

pfp 06-28-2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letsgoavs1921 (Post 68152843)
The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

I don't believe THIS council approved any previous deals.

cobra427 06-28-2013 03:05 PM

The more I think about it, the more I think this will pass. If you are a town with 230,000 people and you have two major pro sports franchises, how could you let one leave, or be squarely responsible for one leaving. A COG member gets 100% of the blame if they vote no, for the team leaving, and for any business that fails at Westgate and for Westgate itself, should it fail too.

With a yes vote, they are picking the lesser of two evils, and won't get all of the blame, even if it does not work out. The COG was kind of handed a turd from the previous administration. There is not any kicking and screaming from citizens to not do this deal either, none. Bottom line, there is less political risk with a yes vote.

Naurutger 06-28-2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotes (Post 68147975)
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort.

Last summer, they only needed 2,100 signatures and failed (turned in 1,400 three days after the deadline). So 7,000 secures that coffin. Even the well funded anti-tax group only gathered 4K.

letsgoavs1921 06-28-2013 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfp (Post 68154343)
I don't believe THIS council approved any previous deals.

I'm not 100% sure if that is accurate or not but the Mayor honored the Jamison deal and this one is much better.

Still, what is the alternative?

Colt45Blast 06-28-2013 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotes (Post 68147975)
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort

It's called Election Day 2012, the voters spoke on that day in order to bring in politicans to stop any kind of deal that would keep the team in Glendale. July 2nd will be the day that deterimes if they same people who got voted in will stick to their guns or not. Damn those real facts.



Quote:

Originally Posted by pacdunes (Post 68151301)
now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you? :handclap:


Rants are not facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakey53 (Post 68153913)
We are talking about the COG. NO BRAINER!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakey53 (Post 68154051)
They can't.:)

:blah:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.