View Single Post
Old
12-21-2012, 07:44 AM
  #699
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcoyotes33 View Post
Is it possible that Jamison is waiting for the lockout to end before he closes?

My theory is that since there is a clause in the lease agreement that would require Jamison to pay like $50,000(?) for every game missed, do you think Jamison is trying to avoid those payments by not signing the agreement just yet. Holding out to wait and see if the league and the NHLPA can get the season going before he signs and has to cover those lost games?

Just a thought.... dont know if it has been mentioned already in these endless pages of posts haha
I don't normally hang out here but as, awfulwaffle passed this theory along to the thread on the BOH board, I felt compelled to come over here and set the record straight. There is NO $60,000/game penalty for this season:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Approved Lease 8.3.1(b)
(b) In the event that the Arena Manager and Team Owner do not play 40 Regular Season Games, the Arena Manager and Team Owner, jointly or severally, will pay to the City an amount equal to $60,000 multiplied by a number equal to the Regular Season Games required by this Section less the Regular Season Games actually played; provided however, this Section 8.3.1(b) will not be applicable to the 2012-13 NHL season.
(source)

The $25,000/year penalty for insufficient non-hockey events doesn't apply for 2012-13 either.

Strictly looking at the lease, Jamison has an incentive to close as early as he can, because this year's $11 million payment is prorated by the # of days until June 30 2013 divided by 365, i.e. if he closes on Jan 1 the AMF is $5.5 million.

IMO, the most plausible view is that Jamison's investors are waiting for the lockout to end to see what type of business environment they would be working in if they closed, i.e. revenue sharing, salary floor/cap, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manisback121
My question is if he were going to buy the team, why was there not an express condition for the closing to occur before the parties contractual duties are enforced.

This would be straight up condition for an event, not certain to occur, whose occurence musy happen before duties must be performed.
Those conditions are already there, see article 17 of the lease (link above). Regardless of the date on which he signs the lease, Jamison has to buy the team and get sufficient financing (in the eyes of the NHL) for closing on the lease to happen.

barneyg is offline