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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2011, 12:45 PM
  #926
Jesus Christ Horburn
Registered User
 
Jesus Christ Horburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 13,882
vCash: 500
Weren't they supposed to start selling them on Friday?

Jesus Christ Horburn is online now  
Old
02-22-2011, 12:49 PM
  #927
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
This has also perplexed the GWI. They themselves are trying to connect the dots to see if this is constitutional or not. Brighter minds, like Casual Fan, seem to believe that the parking rights scheme is constructed well enough to stand challenge.
Absolutely ABD. I dont discount CF's, GSC's or anyone elses' opinion that its' doable & believe it to be so myself as you know & I believe agree, however, if we back the truck up for a moment here, its the "assumption" that I made (along with many others) that the Parking Rights were included in the AMULA with Moyes' that was extended under an Interim Agreement with the NHL. Not some separate agreement & file altogether. It puts' a whole new spin on things.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 12:50 PM
  #928
Roadrage
Registered User
 
Roadrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Next door
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
Weren't they supposed to start selling them on Friday?
Possibly but they didn't specify WHICH Friday.

Roadrage is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 12:52 PM
  #929
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Section 3.3 is where the meat of our discussion is.
And as I read it, the assignment of the various rights applies explicitly "during the Agreement Term". Is that how you read articles under Section 3.3?

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 12:53 PM
  #930
Fidel Astro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,326
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrage View Post
Possibly but they didn't specify WHICH Friday.
The Friday is imminent.

Fidel Astro is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
  #931
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
yeah seriously....i couldnt sleep at all last night in anticipation of bond day....like ed grimley on christmas eve....
Oh Boy. Had to go there huh?. Referencing Oddball-Man-Child Ed Grimley & his Totally Mental Misadventures. Isnt' he playing Triangle in an exclusive engagement with Florence & The Machine at the moment?. Booked into the job?. The DogDays are Over?. Hooked up to invisible piano wires flying around the arena like a bat out of hell?. Totally decent Im sure.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:09 PM
  #932
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
however, if we back the truck up for a moment here, its the "assumption" that I made (along with many others) that the Parking Rights were included in the AMULA with Moyes' that was extended under an Interim Agreement with the NHL. Not some separate agreement & file altogether. It puts' a whole new spin on things.
It does give more credence to the idea that the City does have to purchase the rights if they wish to earn profits from the parking, it however does not change anything in regards to whether or not 100 million + interest is "overpaying" for these rights. Given the amount of revenue the previous Arena Managers have generated through these rights, it seems it would make for an interesting case in court.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:13 PM
  #933
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Absolutely ABD. I dont discount CF's, GSC's or anyone elses' opinion that its' doable & believe it to be so myself as you know & I believe agree, however, if we back the truck up for a moment here, its the "assumption" that I made (along with many others) that the Parking Rights were included in the AMULA with Moyes' that was extended under an Interim Agreement with the NHL. Not some separate agreement & file altogether. It puts' a whole new spin on things.
Let's collect all the agreements as if they were Pokemon cards. The Moyes AMULA in 4 parts:

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_1.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_2.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_3.pdf
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_756_4.pdf


Then we have the substantial draft of the Hulsizer AMULA
http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...21511-SM01.pdf

The November 2001 Arena Development Agreement is still missing from our set.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:22 PM
  #934
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
I call your pair of AMULA's and raise you a development agreement (which I have, but cannot upload due to size) and, the prize (and solution of much of this) the Easement agreement:

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:23 PM
  #935
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
And as I read it, the assignment of the various rights applies explicitly "during the Agreement Term". Is that how you read articles under Section 3.3?
Correct, the defined "Agreement Term" is bound by the term of such Arena Management agreement.

The MUDA itself has no term other than the agreement date in 2001. The City is making the statement that the MUDA gives all parking rights to whomever is holding the arena management agreement. The City is purchasing those rights for 30 years, which would be the balance of the AMULA.

Where I have a disconnect is the proposed arena purchase after 5 years by MH. I don't have the knowledge or the source on what happens with those parking rights if MH excercises his right to purchase. The lines start to pretzel for me at that point.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:27 PM
  #936
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Of course. What the....?
Sorry. Not quite awake while typing. A common technique in equity valuation is to represent all of the income that is subsequent to the end of a projection as a multiple of the final year. It is not perfect but is used widely in practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Put another way, if the City of Glendale has to buy these perpetual rights back, when did they sell them in the first place, and to whom?
Why didn't that violate the Gift Clause? Weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamwires View Post
I'm so tired of this. It's up there with the Black Eyed Peas Superbowl performance.
I am getting there too. I want to look away but can't for some strange reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
Sooooooooooo, is Glendale going to sell the Bonds or what?
Illinois was scheduled to bring $3.7 billion of single A munis to market last week, but the was postponed to this week (they hope anyway, it's imminent). These will compete with Glendale for investors.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:29 PM
  #937
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I call your pair of AMULA's and raise you a development agreement (which I have, but cannot upload due to size) and, the prize (and solution of much of this) the Easement agreement:
and I've got 2/7 off-suit.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:40 PM
  #938
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I call your pair of AMULA's and raise you a development agreement (which I have, but cannot upload due to size) and, the prize (and solution of much of this) the Easement agreement:
Anyone holding "City owned the Parking Rights" or "This is not equitable consideration" should fold.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:43 PM
  #939
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Glad I'm back, boys and girls??
Seems like you're the one enjoying it most.


@Everyone else. Isn't this a point that GWI said they were exploring--- who owns the parking rights and why COG would need to purchase them from MH.

That does imply that somebody, somewhere (Moyes & Elman) actually paid for them, whether that was money or some other element in their agreement with Glendale.

It cannot be that hard to find by simply following the money trail. One of Moyes LLC's was the Arena Manager (we have the agreement in that massive collection of files from the trials)-- actually was something like <Moyes ranch something or other> Arena Mgt LLC.

Edit: See that some files were dug up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
The NHL didn't "purchase" or assume the remaining years of the original 30 year AMULA. The new owner [MH] would be doing so.

The parking rights only have that monetization value over a long term AMULA.

From whom, mouser? Who "owns" the rights? Who is allowed to charge for parking RIGHT now? MH has to acquire the right from somebody, and that somebody had to pay someone along the way. These rights didn't just sprout out of nowhere.

 
Old
02-22-2011, 01:45 PM
  #940
TrentSteele
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I call your pair of AMULA's and raise you a development agreement (which I have, but cannot upload due to size) and, the prize (and solution of much of this) the Easement agreement:
Once you "call", you can no longer "raise".

TrentSteele is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:47 PM
  #941
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Seems like you're the one enjoying it most.


@Everyone else. Isn't this a point that GWI said they were exploring--- who owns the parking rights and why COG would need to purchase them from MH.

That does imply that somebody, somewhere (Moyes & Elman) actually paid for them, whether that was money or some other element in their agreement with Glendale.

It cannot be that hard to find by simply following the money trail. One of Moyes LLC's was the Arena Manager (we have the agreement in that massive collection of files from the trials)-- actually was something like <Moyes ranch something or other> Arena Mgt LLC.
Dewey Ranch.

Goldwater is on a fools errand if they choose to pursue the parking rights conveyance and payment.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:47 PM
  #942
aj8000
Registered User
 
aj8000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 735
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
And as I read it, the assignment of the various rights applies explicitly "during the Agreement Term". Is that how you read articles under Section 3.3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Section 3.3 is where the meat of our discussion is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I call your pair of AMULA's and raise you a development agreement (which I have, but cannot upload due to size) and, the prize (and solution of much of this) the Easement agreement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Seems like you're the one enjoying it most.


@Everyone else. Isn't this a point that GWI said they were exploring--- who owns the parking rights and why COG would need to purchase them from MH.

That does imply that somebody, somewhere (Moyes & Elman) actually paid for them, whether that was money or some other element in their agreement with Glendale.

It cannot be that hard to find by simply following the money trail. One of Moyes LLC's was the Arena Manager (we have the agreement in that massive collection of files from the trials)-- actually was something like <Moyes ranch something or other> Arena Mgt LLC.
I am not arguing that Moyes did not have the parking rights under these agreements. My contention is that these agreements are all null and void because of the BK and only extended for short periods of time to facilitate the sale of the Coyotes. The extensions end when the new lease is signed; therefore, if you want the parking rights you do not include them in the new lease.

aj8000 is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:50 PM
  #943
Roadrage
Registered User
 
Roadrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Next door
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Anyone holding "City owned the Parking Rights" or "This is not equitable consideration" should fold.
Methinks quite a few people will see this as a decent hand. Right on par with "$100 million for parking rights for next 3 decades is sound business decision" or "TBD on where we find $97 million for 5.5 years of Arena Management fees."

Roadrage is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 01:54 PM
  #944
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Dewey Ranch.

Goldwater is on a fools errand if they choose to pursue the parking rights conveyance and payment.
I don't know if they indeed will choose that or not, but I recall reading that was one issue that was being investigated further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj8000 View Post
I am not arguing that Moyes did not have the parking rights under these agreements. My contention is that these agreements are all null and void because of the BK and only extended for short periods of time to facilitate the sale of the Coyotes. The extensions end when the new lease is signed; therefore, if you want the parking rights you do not include them in the new lease.

That's why I keep asking for all the blanks to be filled in.

Once upon a time, an arena was built by COG, and they paved some land for parking. Elman promised to build a parking garage at some point in the future.

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 -- Elman exits, Moyes assumes 100% ownership (more or less) of the Yotes and sole Arena Manager
2007
2008
2009 - Baum awards the Coyotes to the NHL for $140m; Moyes is still the Arena Manager, plus all rights, which the NHL asked for/received by asking him to not terminate the agreement for one additional year. ???

2010 -- June 2010. Moyes agreement is terminated.
2011 - MH, who hasn't bought the team yet, somehow will sell the parking rights to COG.

??????

What did I leave out?

 
Old
02-22-2011, 01:56 PM
  #945
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Moyes is an utter moron for not selling the gold he owned in those rights to COG.

Edit: Or is this how he gets off the hook with COG for penalties??

 
Old
02-22-2011, 02:04 PM
  #946
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Moyes is an utter moron for not selling the gold he owned in those rights to COG.
As mentioned before, everyone agrees this is an endrun around intended legislation to protect agaisnt these sorts of shenanigans. All us rational folk know that if they were charging 15-20 bucks a car they would be hampering the original struggle of attendance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj8000 View Post
I am not arguing that Moyes did not have the parking rights under these agreements. My contention is that these agreements are all null and void because of the BK and only extended for short periods of time to facilitate the sale of the Coyotes. The extensions end when the new lease is signed; therefore, if you want the parking rights you do not include them in the new lease.
If I am not mistaken the MUDA was never part of the BK because it was an initial framework agreement of the developers.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 02:10 PM
  #947
aj8000
Registered User
 
aj8000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 735
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
??????

What did I leave out?
I don't think you left anything out. I want to see how the previous rights have been automatically assigned to MH so he can sell them back to the COG.

I have been trying to find the agreement to fund the losses for the year to read how the extension of Moyes lease from the end of June was worded. If I remember correctly it was only temporary.

If anyone has the link to the thread it would be much appreciated.

aj8000 is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 02:11 PM
  #948
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Who "owns" the rights? Who is allowed to charge for parking RIGHT now? MH has to acquire the right from somebody, and that somebody had to pay someone along the way. These rights didn't just sprout out of nowhere.
Seemingly the NHL, who acquired the rights through the BK along with the team if were to understand the notion that its' a completely separate issue, just part of the detritus they picked up when Moyes went down, and worth a sizeable chunk of change over & above the team itself & the payments dished out to the creditors. How is it possible that the COG wasnt paying attention to this and allowed it to happen when they themselves were claiming close to a half a billion in losses if the team were to amscray?. Secondly, if it is correct, and the NHL does indeed own these rights for 30yrs or in perpetuity, why the charade of concealing this in a lead assumption made by many that these rights are controlled by Glendale but invested in the Lease & or Arena Mgmnt agrmnts; assigned, then purchased back from the prospective new owner of team/mgr of the arena?. I mean really, its all slight of hand & wont affect the outcome one way or another should a deal be completed, however, if its not, what then?.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-22-2011, 02:18 PM
  #949
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Seemingly the NHL, who acquired the rights through the BK along with the team if were to understand the notion that its' a completely separate issue, just part of the detritus they picked up when Moyes went down, and worth a sizeable chunk of change over & above the team itself & the payments dished out to the creditors. How is it possible that the COG wasnt paying attention to this and allowed it to happen when they themselves were claiming close to a half a billion in losses if the team were to amscray?. Secondly, if it is correct, and the NHL does indeed own these rights for 30yrs or in perpetuity, why the charade of concealing this in a lead assumption made by many that these rights are controlled by Glendale but invested in the Lease & or Arena Mgmnt agrmnts; assigned, then purchased back from the prospective new owner of team/mgr of the arena?. I mean really, its all slight of hand & wont affect the outcome one way or another should a deal be completed, however, if its not, what then?.

If the NHL owns these rights in perpetuity, how exactly did that happen if they were piggy-backing on Moyes AMULA for the year following the purchase of the Coyotes?

Recall that Moyes had three separate LLC's, only one of which owned the Coyotes. I was under the impression that the NHL only paid the court for the franchise. Moyes may have owned the rights to the parking vis-a-vis the arena mgt contract, but that contract was between him and COG, not the NHL. I remember asking at the time why the NHL would have asked the court to not terminate Moyes arena agreement and allow it to go one additional year.

So something happened between that point and when Moyes officially terminated the Arena Mgt contract with COG.

 
Old
02-22-2011, 02:19 PM
  #950
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Moyes is an utter moron for not selling the gold he owned in those rights to COG.
Well exactly. What an idiot. Id have thought a shrewd operator like Jerry wouldve' realized the angles on this one months before going all rogue & wouldve tried to sell the rights back to the COG, cashed the cheque. Instead, its just lying around in his estate papers, found & picked up the league, who in recognizing its value acquires it without Glendale any the wiser?. Its just craziness.

Killion 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 09:14 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.