HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2010, 05:29 PM
  #1
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,698
vCash: 500
Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?

Previous thread here:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=761372


Last edited by LadyStanley: 05-06-2010 at 10:50 PM. Reason: update title
mouser is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 05:31 PM
  #2
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
GSC2k2: Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Show us all where Reinsdorf is prohibited from breaking the lease. Show us where it "does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team"

Or were you just speculating about those things?


CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 06:15 PM
  #3
smokes
Registered User
 
smokes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
GSC2k2: My you are popular today...

See, that's the thing. I am not "confident that the bonds will sell". I have no particular expertise in market demand for municipal bonds. What I DO know is that (a) all the people who are opining on it here have even less expertise in it than I do but it does not prevent them from trying their hand at it, and (b) in transactions of this nature, the parties work with their investment bankers to determine whether a deal is financeable, before they go down the road as far as these parties have gone. THat is all i have had to say about that. I can see a story that can be sold to the bond markets, but certainly if there is an out clause for JR it probably will not work. It is for this reason that I assume that the current lack of an "out clause" in the MOU will follow through to the AMULA.

THe one part that I do wonder about is how the parking assets themselves will get into the CFD. Will the CFD be required to pay fair market value (and thus raise additional funds)? If the City simply donates it to the CFD, how does that work? Would there be a reversionary interest in favour of the City? Who owns the parking assets right now? For that matter, are we talking about the existing parking lots, or are we talking about the indoor parking facility that is still to be built?

With the two exceptions above, then, I'm guessing that it is your professional opinion that the end of June deadline means little (is there some kind of deadline after that?), that GWI will not challenge or will not be successful in its challenge (and that the resulting legal limbo will not interfere with the transfer of ownership to JR), and that, at this stage in the game, the NHL will accept JR's bid as they likely already know what it is/will be and regardless of how some may eventually (and possibly) criticize it?

Thanks to you and others who patiently answer questions by us lay persons (sometimes many times over). By the way, you can have my 500 dollars of Vcash. I was planning on giving it to my wife for Christmas, but thought better of it.

smokes is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 06:27 PM
  #4
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
GSC2k2: Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Show us all where Reinsdorf is prohibited from breaking the lease. Show us where it "does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team"

Or were you just speculating about those things?

Your latest posts amply demonstrate one of two things:

(a) You are incapable of understanding what you are reading; or

(b) You are trying to do some sort of ridiculous mano-a-mano thing and therefore are deliberately ignoring what I am telling you.

[I am not discounting the possibility that both (a) and (b) are operative.]

Let me repeat what i have said several times, including directly to you: I am reading the MOU. In case you haven't noticed (but I know you have), there is rampant misunderstanding on the provisions of the MOU itself. Some people think that the City has to actually buy the team. Others think that the city is guaranteeing the price (effectively making this a put, instead of the call that it is). Others have completely misunderstood the nature of the losses provision. Others think that (and pay close attention to this one) that there actually is a provision in the MOU allowing JR to move the team. Others (again, read closely) think that there is a provision in the MOU providing for the lease to terminate.

Now read this super-closely, because I am tired of repeating it for you:

1. THere is no provision in the MOU that allows the AMULA to terminate early.

2. Several people mistakenly believe that there is such a provision in the MOU.

3. Because of 1 and 2, I have posted that there is no such provision in the MOU.

Allow me to repeat, YET AGAIN, what I have said in my recent posts:

"As I said in my previous post and bears repeating here, if the City decides to do something that is not in the documents, c'est la vie. As many have noted, an out clause would negatively impact the CFD's ability to sell bonds."

If you think that is speculating on the AMULA, then you are wasting my time and everyone else's time.

You are the only one among the two of us who is speculating. If you want to talk about differences between the two of us, as noted in your previous post, one of us has written literally hundreds of MOUs in their career, and the other has not. I actually would be qualified to speculate on what will be in the AMULA, but I have not done so. You know why? Because I know, again from experience, that dealing with governmental entities results in parties doing things for political perception reasons that have no place in commercial transactions. THe fact is that, in a normal commercial environment, if the parties have discussed and agreed upon an "out clause", it would be a specified provision of the MOU, given its critical importance. With political perception a factor, certain political actors might not want it publicized. THAT, however, is a function of a number of political factors which no one here has even the slightest ability to calculate (yours truly included). Hence, I do not speculate on what will be in the AMULA. What we do NOT need to speculate on is what is ACTUALLY IN THE MOU. We don't need to speculate because we have it in front of us.

You are speculating about the AMULA. I am (and have been) talking about what is in (or not in) the MOU, which is in front of us.

Do you get it now? If not, I am out of ways to tell you.

From your previous post in the other thread:

Quote:
And equally in short: I simply observed what is not in the MOU (language preventing Reinsdorf from terminating the AMULA)
That is a baldfaced fabrication of what you did. You expressly speculated on the AMULA. You even admitted to same in the rest of your post.

Quote:
A more seasoned professional would likely interpret the inclusion of that option to mean that if Glendale fails to locate a local buyer, Reinsdorf would indeed have the ability to break the lease and leave.
Again, please explain how you would have the faintest idea what a "more seasoned professional" would do or not do.

[NOTE: You have not even tried to address the reference in Recital E of the MOU, which again states: "It is the intent of the parties to keep the team in Glendale, Arizona for the term of the lease."]

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 06:41 PM
  #5
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokes View Post
GSC2k2: My you are popular today...

See, that's the thing. I am not "confident that the bonds will sell". I have no particular expertise in market demand for municipal bonds. What I DO know is that (a) all the people who are opining on it here have even less expertise in it than I do but it does not prevent them from trying their hand at it, and (b) in transactions of this nature, the parties work with their investment bankers to determine whether a deal is financeable, before they go down the road as far as these parties have gone. THat is all i have had to say about that. I can see a story that can be sold to the bond markets, but certainly if there is an out clause for JR it probably will not work. It is for this reason that I assume that the current lack of an "out clause" in the MOU will follow through to the AMULA.

THe one part that I do wonder about is how the parking assets themselves will get into the CFD. Will the CFD be required to pay fair market value (and thus raise additional funds)? If the City simply donates it to the CFD, how does that work? Would there be a reversionary interest in favour of the City? Who owns the parking assets right now? For that matter, are we talking about the existing parking lots, or are we talking about the indoor parking facility that is still to be built?

With the two exceptions above, then, I'm guessing that it is your professional opinion that the end of June deadline means little (is there some kind of deadline after that?), that GWI will not challenge or will not be successful in its challenge (and that the resulting legal limbo will not interfere with the transfer of ownership to JR), and that, at this stage in the game, the NHL will accept JR's bid as they likely already know what it is/will be and regardless of how some may eventually (and possibly) criticize it?

Thanks to you and others who patiently answer questions by us lay persons (sometimes many times over). By the way, you can have my 500 dollars of Vcash. I was planning on giving it to my wife for Christmas, but thought better of it.
Straightforward questions. Love 'em.

Quote:
1.it is your professional opinion that the end of June deadline means little
Right, so long as the parties are making progress. If the process craters in some definitive way, then all bets are off.

Quote:
(is there some kind of deadline after that?),
Don't know.

Quote:
that GWI will not challenge or will not be successful in its challenge (and that the resulting legal limbo will not interfere with the transfer of ownership to JR),
Barring the question above as to how the assets get in the CFD, I don't see how. The GI needs someone within the jurisdiction to complain (a Glendale resident if there is something in the AMULA that is a subsidy, and someone within the CFD for subsidies granted by the CFD). As to the latter, only voluntary parties will be included in the CFD, so there is virtually no risk there (unless a voluntary participant changes their mind). Again that does not touch the issue of how the assets get into the CFD.

Quote:
and that, at this stage in the game, the NHL will accept JR's bid as they likely already know what it is/will be and regardless of how some may eventually (and possibly) criticize it?
It would shock me if the NHL and JR have not already signed their own MOU setting out the purchase price, including the parts of the Glendale MOU that deals with the $65M coming from the CFD. Honestly, to suggest otherwise (as evidently those folks on the FAN590 apparently think) is beyond silly.

As to other owners criticizing it (I assume that is who you mean), I have not the slightest idea why any other owner would care about it. From their perspective, as long as JR is compliant with the debt/equity rules and has the appropriate amount of working capital, there is no reason to care.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 06:54 PM
  #6
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
I simply removed all your bluster so we could move directly to the point at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
You are speculating about the AMULA. I am (and have been) talking about what is in (or not in) the MOU, which is in front of us. Do you get it now? If not, I am out of ways to tell you.
Here's your quote: "JR can sell his team in five years. As I outlined about 500-600 posts ago, that does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team..."

Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Now show us exactly where the MOU states that subsequent purchasers will not be allowed to break the lease. Or were you just speculating that a subsequent purchaser will not be able to break the lease?

Here's another quote: "You are the only person doing the speculating. What I have said, and what is in fact the case, is that in order to get out from the obligation, the AMULA must be terminable (whether at the five year point or whenever). THe MOU does not so provide. You are SPECULATING that the AMULA will have such a provision."

Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Show us where the MOU states that the new lease will not be terminable. Does the MOU provide such language? Or are you SPECULATING that the AMULA will not have such a provision?

It's not really complicated at all. You're posting your opinion of what the final agreement will look like. It's not supported by the MOU, it's just your own baseless speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
You are the only one among the two of us who is speculating.
No. I am the only one among the two of us who is strong enough to admit it's speculation. You are clearly speculating, there is no doubt that the statements you make are not supported by anything in the MOU. Yet for some reason, you are still compelled to feebly attempt to sell us all that you are presenting divine gospel and everything you post is an indisputable fact. It's not.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 07:17 PM
  #7
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Now read this super-closely, because I am tired of repeating it for you:

1. THere is no provision in the MOU that allows the AMULA to terminate early.
I went ahead and took an extra few minutes to read that super-closely. You know what? There is no provision in the MOU that prevents the AMULA from terminating at the point of a Reinsdorf sale.

So I guess that any statement on what would happen to the lease in the event of a Reinsdorf sale is just speculation. But that didn't stop someone from claiming that the MOU "does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team."

Go figure.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 07:35 PM
  #8
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
I swear some people here are part of some disinformation propaganda campaign. The MOU explicitly says that, if the Operating Loss account cannot cover the losses ($100million) after 5 years, CoG can get more money elsewhere, or JR can sell the team. The CoG can choose to find a buyer, for no less than $103million, the supposed original investment. Yeah, JR is really sticking his neck out on this one.

What's not clear is what happens if CoG can't find a buyer, or if they choose not to. It seems to me, the only reasonable assumption is that JR can move the team elsewhere. If that is not the case that whole clause is completely pointless. JR would be stuck with the lease anyways. The way it's worded seems like a deliberate attempt to not include an out clause in the MOU without explicitly denying there will be an out clause.

I guess there is some special invisible ink in the MOU that only HF board lawyers can read.

supahdupah is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 08:12 PM
  #9
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
casual fan...your last post on the previous thread....game set and match.


the argument is quite pointless as it is purely speculation.....anything can happen from proposal to final agremeent...but it sure is fun to argue hypotheticals

it is odd that there has been little word from any other source on progress.

Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 05:35 AM. Reason: OT
peter sullivan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 08:19 PM
  #10
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
I swear some people here are part of some disinformation propaganda campaign. The MOU explicitly says that, if the Operating Loss account cannot cover the losses ($100million) after 5 years, CoG can get more money elsewhere, or JR can sell the team. The CoG can choose to find a buyer, for no less than $103million, the supposed original investment. Yeah, JR is really sticking his neck out on this one.

What's not clear is what happens if CoG can't find a buyer, or if they choose not to. It seems to me, the only reasonable assumption is that JR can move the team elsewhere. If that is not the case that whole clause is completely pointless. JR would be stuck with the lease anyways. The way it's worded seems like a deliberate attempt to not include an out clause in the MOU without explicitly denying there will be an out clause.

I guess there is some special invisible ink in the MOU that only HF board lawyers can read.
In thinking that the clause would be pointless, you are for some reason making the assumption that the clause is in there for the benefit of and at the request of Reinsdorf.

Here is something that might help you think about this in a different way. Most leases and other services agreements of this nature include restrictions on transfer. Lessees cannot simply elect to transfer their obligations to someone else without the consent of the lessor.


GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 08:28 PM
  #11
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
That would be fine, if anyone other than you were speculating on what will be in the lease, instead of my reading and commenting on what is in the MOU.
It's really very direct. Here is your quote: "JR can sell his team in five years. As I outlined about 500-600 posts ago, that does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team..."

Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Now show us exactly where the MOU states that subsequent purchasers will not be allowed to break the lease.

Since you continue to say that you are not speculating but rather just reading and commenting on what is in the MOU, surely you can easily point to the language in the MOU that validates your statement.

Please, be my guest. Show us how your statement is not baseless speculation. Go ahead and direct us to the statement in the MOU that a subsequent purchaser will not be able to break the lease.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 08:30 PM
  #12
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
you are right GSC2k2....it does read like the COG has first right of refusal if reinsdorf bails in 5 years....they can find a buyer for him at the $103 and he is free to go....he cant simply leave without the city first trying to find someone else.

the issue will be what if they cant find a buyer to take it on without subsidies?....they couldnt this time.

it is likely that there will be a provision for that in the final agreement....if they cant find a buyer the logical answer is that he keeps the team and moves it....it seems unlikely that he will be forced to stay and lose money for the next 20 years...do you really think that is the deal JR will sign?...

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 08:49 PM
  #13
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
It seems to me, the only reasonable assumption is that JR can move the team elsewhere.
It boggles the mind to suppose a guy squeezing the city's and NHL's petunias like this would even contemplate signing a lease agreement that doesn't either give him a relocation out or a guaranteed minimum sale price.

Yeah, sure, it's "speculation", but darn well founded speculation.
Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 05:35 AM. Reason: qep
 
Old
05-02-2010, 09:24 PM
  #14
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
It's really very direct. Here is your quote: "JR can sell his team in five years. As I outlined about 500-600 posts ago, that does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team..."

Here's the MOU: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ckeyLLCMOU.pdf

Now show us exactly where the MOU states that subsequent purchasers will not be allowed to break the lease.

Since you continue to say that you are not speculating but rather just reading and commenting on what is in the MOU, surely you can easily point to the language in the MOU that validates your statement.

Please, be my guest. Show us how your statement is not baseless speculation. Go ahead and direct us to the statement in the MOU that a subsequent purchaser will not be able to break the lease.
Read my responses before. If you haven't gotten it by now, you will never get it.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 09:35 PM
  #15
Kismet
Registered User
 
Kismet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 50
I hope you will endure a newbie question here. I've been reading through the boards(for days), and think they're fantastic! I do have a question on the Reinsdorf deal, and am sure it has been answered somewhere in this ongoing Roman Numeric odyssey, but...if Reinsdorf is still a partial owner of the United Center, doesn't he have a financial interest in seeing the Hawks go far in the playoffs?

Why is there no concern over potential conflict of interest...or is it due simply to his lack of actual ownership in the Blackhawks themselves?

Kismet is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 10:01 PM
  #16
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
In thinking that the clause would be pointless, you are for some reason making the assumption that the clause is in there for the benefit of and at the request of Reinsdorf.

Here is something that might help you think about this in a different way. Most leases and other services agreements of this nature include restrictions on transfer. Lessees cannot simply elect to transfer their obligations to someone else without the consent of the lessor.

Again with the misdirection. The clause would be pointless if JR had no way to release himself from the lease obligation. He is guaranteed $103 million from a new buyer that CoG finds, or? What's the OR here? If there isn't an out clause why would CoG need to do anything? JR would be bound by the lease for the entire 20+ years. Are you sure you don't just like to argue?

I am sure you will respond with more rhetoric that mischaracterizes my comments, as usual. This time I will just ignore you.

supahdupah is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 10:02 PM
  #17
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Read my responses before. If you haven't gotten it by now, you will never get it.
Oh, I get it. I think we all get it.

This is blatant, baseless speculation: "JR can sell his team in five years. As I outlined about 500-600 posts ago, that does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team..." - GSC2k2

But instead of just admitting that you were speculating, you steadfastly insist that you are reading and commenting on what is in the MOU. So accordingly, why don't you just point out the language in the MOU that states that a subsequent purchaser is not allow to break the lease and move the team? If, as you insist, you are not speculating and you are commenting on what is in the MOU, it should be a very, very easy task to just point us to those statements.

Of course, anyone following this matter knows why you won't do it: Because there is no such language in the MOU. And now that you've been called out on your blatant speculation, you post a fumbling attempt to change the subject instead of addressing your misstatement. It didn't work. We do, indeed, get it.


Last edited by CasualFan: 05-02-2010 at 10:49 PM.
CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 10:42 PM
  #18
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
I hope you will endure a newbie question here. I've been reading through the boards(for days), and think they're fantastic! I do have a question on the Reinsdorf deal, and am sure it has been answered somewhere in this ongoing Roman Numeric odyssey, but...if Reinsdorf is still a partial owner of the United Center, doesn't he have a financial interest in seeing the Hawks go far in the playoffs?

Why is there no concern over potential conflict of interest...or is it due simply to his lack of actual ownership in the Blackhawks themselves?
The NHL Constitution prohibits "majority" (30%+) ownership of multiple teams. Nothing about arena ownership. (AEG owns the Kings, Staples, and has been pushing to get a NHL franchise in their "empty of major sports tenant" Kansas City facility.)

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-02-2010, 11:12 PM
  #19
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
but...if Reinsdorf is still a partial owner of the United Center, doesn't he have a financial interest in seeing the Hawks go far in the playoffs?

Why is there no concern over potential conflict of interest...or is it due simply to his lack of actual ownership in the Blackhawks themselves?

It may surprise many on the amount of redundancies in the NHL. The Jacobs family (Bruins) owns a large stake in the concessions at the Pepsi Centre (Denver). It set a lot of red flags when Ray Borque was traded to the Avalanche.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 12:53 AM
  #20
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
First off, isn't the June 30 deadline set by the bankruptcy court, NOT the NHL? Isn't that the date the NHL can reject the CURRENT AMULA in place?

Second, why would the MOU mention a NEW AMULA if they were going to proceed under the current AMULA?

Section 6. AMULA. The parties recognize a new AMULA will need to be executed as follows:

6.1 (paraphrasing) City will assign it to JR or who JR says to assign it to

6.2 (paraphrasing) CoG still has to pay the bonds used in financing the construction of the arena, presumably so the arena itself does not go into default and get sold to pay bondholders.

And lastly, if the CoG can not put together the CFD, JR gets $200k for his troubles. (section 12)

Should be interesting........

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 01:37 AM
  #21
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
First off, isn't the June 30 deadline set by the bankruptcy court, NOT the NHL? Isn't that the date the NHL can reject the CURRENT AMULA in place?
That's the date when the NHL's sublease on the AMULA expires and then Moyes can (but is not required to) reject the lease.

As long as there is the possibility of a new/amended AMULA being agreed to, there is no reason for Moyes to reject the AMULA and about 500-million reasons not to. If Moyes rejects the lease, then his estate is on the hook for the Liquidated Damages. If he waits for the NHL/JR deal to resolve, he may be off the hook.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 07:20 AM
  #22
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
For the last time - I was, and am, talking about the MOU. The right to sell the team, AS IS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THE MOU, does not mean a right to move the team. There is no such right in the MOU.

If you two are arguing points on the direct translation of the document, then yes. You win.

However. Given the set of circumstances needed in order to enact the 'right to sell', it is effectively a given the team will move. It has taken over a year to find an owner and agree to terms for the current circumstances. If you fast-forward 5 years and have now exceeded 105 mill in losses, how on earth is the city going to find a suitor to purchase this team for 103mil in 180 days willing to keep the team in Glendale?

A business that has at that point been in service for 20 years, losing copious amounts of cash cannot provide any reason to operate under the same set of circumstances. Heck 15 years is more than enough.

Even as a lawyer, you have to admit that 'Casual Fan's' points have legitimacy under all reasonable circumstances.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 08:13 AM
  #23
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
AS you indicate, there is no right to move the team but the MOU does not FORBID moving the team. The MOU is silent on BOTH counts so BOTH of you are speculating and both of you are right.

The MOU is silent on many things. Such as what if JR sells the team and get $190 million? Does anything over $103 go to pay back the CFD for the $65 million they are putting in or paying back the losses? Isn't this where Moyes got in trouble? He was not considered a creditor by the bankruptcy court for all the money he put into the team? Bigger issues than just worrying about whether or not the team can be moved. What about the $165 million (potentially) and minimum of $65 million the CFD is putting towards the team?

It also appears that unless the final language of the contract is significantly different than the MOU, GI will probably, IMO, be filing a lawsuit to block it.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 11:46 AM. Reason: qdp
Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 08:14 AM
  #24
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Oh, please, can we stop discussing who is a lawyer or not? This is a internet message board. If you want to post your CV here, go ahead. Most people choose to post for fun and anonymously. In my experience, lawyers often disagree on various subjects anyway and have very specific business experience and expertise.

...

The MOU with Reinsdorf is very curious, although admittedly it is a non-binding term sheet at best at the moment. It doesn’t pass the “smell” test on a lot of levels to me. However, we admittedly have limited information on what is really being considered at this point.

The question I’ve had all along is who is going to buy the bonds? If they are only backed by future projected parking revenues and voluntary property tax surcharges at Westgate, are those revenue streams solid enough on their own to provide a quality bond that is worth very much or attractive to investors? I highly doubt it. What makes government bonds a safe bet is that they are backed by the tax-payers, much like bank deposits nowadays are backed by the gov’ts. However, if the COG guarantees the bonds, that would likely be seen as a tax payer subsidy to a private business (as such guarantee would be a significant commercial factor in the pricing of the bonds). In that case, and contrary to what a certain poster claims above, legal standing to challenge the CFD would not be limited to the Westgate businesses, but rather to any tax payer in Glendale. Legal risk would then be added to financial risk in the assessment of the bond scheme by any investor.

Also, keep in mind that many institutional investors are only allowed to invest in bonds above a certain rating. They have no choice in the matter.

And the above is only the beginning of some of the questions I would have regarding this MOU. As others have mentioned, what would be the worth of the bonds in the case the Coyotes could potentially leave in 5 years. Or, in other words, what would the bonds be worth if there is an out clause? Without the Coyotes, seemingly the parking revenues and property tax surcharges would be in doubt. That risk would be priced into the bonds without a guarantee from the COG. Then there is the issue of whether the NHL would accept less than what they have paid for and lost on the Coyotes or whether they would agree to an instalment plan for payment.

A lot of questions. Not a lot of time.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
05-03-2010, 08:22 AM
  #25
bromine
Registered User
 
bromine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 289
vCash: 50
Mod: deleted.

This will all be sorted out in the next month or two (hopefully). In the meantime, what is the point in perpetually arguing the meaning and final outcome of a tiny nonbinding document?

Both are claiming victory in this debate, but trust me, no one won here.


Last edited by Fugu: 05-03-2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason: use the report system please
bromine is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.