View Single Post
Old
06-17-2009, 02:16 AM
  #9
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Why would JB pay $500mm to Glendale when he could, if he wanted, probably buy the arena from Glendale for much, much less -- i.e., their remaing obligations on the bonds?

He'd then own the arena and could hire AEG to run in with more concerts, etc., and place an AHL team there or whatever. That's a hypothetical question. I'm not suggesting Balsillie would do that or that Glendale's liquidated damages claim of $500mm would be upheld in court.

Now on to the Goldwater Institute:



Doesn't sound like they are in favour of tax payer subsidies for private companies, does it?


Link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1184893/

GHOST
Its easy to file a lawsuit: trust me, its alot tougher to win one. There are ways to structure a deal and ways not to - both having the same result at the end of the day. Local governments do things to promote/finance/save existing businesses every day in every state. Obviously Glendale will be very careful here as to how they structure whatever they decide to do for the Coyotes. I'm no municipal law expert, but the easiest way could be to give Reinsdorf $X million in free rent and other concessions at the new baseball park Glendale just built for White Sox and Dodger spring training. (You guys who haven't seen it - its a beaut.)

Plus the City North case was already accepted for discretionary review by the Arizona Supreme Court suggesting that they find something at least questionable with the Court of Appeals decision that could be reversed.

You guys who aren't even from AZ suddenly seem to bow down to the Goldwater Institute like its some sort of Darth Vader just because Shoalts decided to write an article on it (knowing very little about it). Its just some ultra right wing "public interest" group. Did a great job ruining City North development for the Phx. taxpayers so that now they have a proposed mall with 3 empty anchor department stores. (Gee that's economic progress.) But many other projects wit government assistance have passed muster. The key is how the deal is structured and what mechanisms they use. In any event, my hunch is that the Supreme Court reverses the City North decision.

And finally, regardless of what "side" you're on here (Hamilton v. Phoenix; Bettman v. Balsilie; rules count v. we just want and we deserve; the Leafs' and Sabres have rights v. no they don't), haven't you guys, at least now, figured out that Rodier is not the best legal strategist in the world. He's more of a blowhard: alot of talk; alot of ego; little substance. While the judge punted on some issues to be decided at a later time, he flately rejected some pretty major issues from's Rodier's blueprint for structuring this deal:

1. Who owns the asset. PSE clearly lost this huge one. Judge held that NHL owned Hamilton territory, not Moyes.
2. No relocation fees are due the league or any team. PSE lost on this one - Judge said league has right to be paid for their asset ("expansion opportunity") under Raider's II.
3. Application of NHL rules requiring consent to ownership transfers and relocations. PSE lost. Judge held league rules apply.
4. The clause in the consent degree where there team agrees to play in Glendale counts and PSE can't "cherry pick" terms they don't like when assuming a contract in bankrupcty.
5. Antitrust lawsuit will cause team to be able to moved immediately due to "bona fide dispute." Judge disagreed and was suspicous of the entire claim - being filed after the bankrupcty filing and before an ownership transfer application had even been filed, let alone rule on by the NHL.
6. On the merits of the antitrust lawsuit - Judge rejected PSE's position there too finding that the claim wasn't even ripe to be heard since the NHL had not even acted on their rules yet. Plus, Judge held that under the applicable 9th Circuit caselaw there was no per se violation of te antitrust laws due to the leagues relocation rules. Instead the matter, (if even pursued by PSE or Moyes) would obviously involve a factual dispute - to be resolved after significant discovery and a trial (i.e. delay).
7. A rushed timeline forcing a relocation of a team in a matter of 6 weeks can't be done.

Depsite acting like he's Sandy Koufax at these "press conferences," Rodier's throwing a lot more balls than strikes.


Last edited by Jake16: 06-17-2009 at 02:54 AM.
Jake16 is offline