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.

Phoenix LXIV: Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Read Me, on Thread LXIV?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 12:02 AM
  #526
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post



I wouldn't bet the farm that the new lease even makes it to the council meeting at the end of November. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets derailed before then. If the Jamison lease does make it onto the agenda, it could be a very entertaining meeting. Imagine the scenario of an incoming mayor or council member getting up in open session and criticizing the acting City Manager and the deal he has cooked up. It could very well happen. I'd also love to see Jamison stonewall the citizens and city council about the identity of the prospective owners, as he did last time. It is absolutely hilarious that a city council might again sanction a $320 million subsidy deal to an unknown party of investors.
Does anyone know if the acting City Manager wants the full time gig? If he does I doubt that it would come to that. I think if he knows the incoming council doesn't want the Coyotes deal he will stonewall it until they come in. I could see Clark calling him out for stonewalling and saying "until 1/7 you report to us and we want this deal in front of us to vote on"

aqib is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:31 AM
  #527
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
They are proposing to defer that repayment out of the General Fund until 2014....
... isnt that an absolute no no Whileee? 2010-11 they dipped into the Enterprise Fund, assured by the NHL it likely wouldnt be needed, refunded upon sale. Ditto last May (2011). It was only "semi-kosher" because they sourced from the EF as opposed to GF's, yet here we are. I seem to recall GW making quite a stink about it, however because it was paid from the former, arguable.

Killion is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:23 AM
  #528
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Does anyone know if the acting City Manager wants the full time gig? If he does I doubt that it would come to that. I think if he knows the incoming council doesn't want the Coyotes deal he will stonewall it until they come in. I could see Clark calling him out for stonewalling and saying "until 1/7 you report to us and we want this deal in front of us to vote on"
Actually according to the laws of Glendale that someone had posted a while back they get replaced in December rather than January so the 11/27 meeting would most likely be the last meeting for Clark.

wildthing202 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 06:15 AM
  #529
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Lovely. The $20 million that was required for the NHL's subsidy in 2012 was taken out of other funds (mainly water / sewer) and needs to be paid back. They are proposing to defer that repayment out of the General Fund until 2014 (thank you for the parting gifts Beasley, Clark and Frate). So, the current operating budget deficit is onerous, even without including this past year's NHL subsidy. If the lame duck council passes a "midnight ordinance" for Jamison's lease, then in 2014 alone, the incoming mayor and council will be saddled with a $35 million bill for the Coyotes' subsidies (2014 AMF and the 2012 subsidy).

If they manage to pull this off, it will be a remarkable feat. I have serious doubts that this will be allowed to proceed. I think that the real question is who will put the kibosh on this, and how.
Not to worry. In 2014 they'll just borrow from a few funds to finance the repayment to the funds! What happens to the lease after November 4, 2014 will be interesting.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:26 AM
  #530
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... honestly Ps, I have no problem with public money funding arenas' & stadiums (50/50, 60/40, 80/20, heck, even 100%; Id vote for that), its all the "extra stuff", commercial, residential, retail, parking garages etc etc etc followed by on-going subsidies that I have a problem with. Ellman, Wang, Katz and many more get greedy, expecting local & or provincial/state authorities to pay the freight, cover any possible losses in perpetuity.



... without wanting to derail the thread powerstruck, in Quebec's case, absolutely no way someone from outside & off-market comes rolling into town supplanting & usurping PKP & Quebecor. Insane to even think about it. But Seattle? I think your well off the mark on that one.

Indeed, in so far as Conspiracy Theories go Greg Jamison finding himself as titular head of a team in transition, returning to his old stomping grounds of the Westcoast backed by Levin and whomever else is beyond plausible. Hansen could be in at the minority level, maybe not at all. I dont know for sure, no ones talking, but there are just too many coincidences, historically & otherwise that breathes life into such a possibility. Not so "far out there" as some suggest.

Moving a 2nd team to a smaller Canadian market in as many years? Dont think the NHL's really big on that one; Jamisons' meanderings in Arizona, always striking me as "odd". Everything about it & him actually. As crazy it might appear on the surface, shifting a desperate franchise to Key Arena temporarily in what is effectively a brand newish market (though the WHL does extremely well) just based on the players involved, I cant help but suspect Washington State is where this franchise winds up. Quebec & Southern Ontario 2 added in 2015 through Expansion. I realize of course that such a suggestion angers many in QC, not to mention the Coyotes fans in Arizona, but if you take everything into consideration, look at it through the eyes of the NHL, the theory makes sense.
The NHL would always be secondary in the Seattle market. The goal is to get an NBA team first and then look at the NHL as a minor tenant alongside an NBA team. Sure... Quebec is a small market but (like Winnipeg) the owner of the team would also own the arena and glean all accompanying revenue from the new facility. Not saying the NHL wouldn't work in Seattle but if you want a "slam dunk" market (pardon the pun)..... Quebec is the place to go.

The attractiveness of Quebec could lead the NHL to think they could reap massive expansive fees from PKP but whose to say PKP would go that route. But... this IS the NHL.... a league where things are done that more often than not... defy logic.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:01 AM
  #531
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 415
vCash: 500
No way will PKP get ***** with an expansion team at the price I'm reading on these boards. He has until 2015 before the new Arena is completed, until then, no need to rush anything. Even after that, no rush. He sits on a great hockey market, a 100 pre-sold corporate boxes and the biggest media coverage in Quebec.

He can wait for a team to go belly up just like they did in Winnipeg. Paying 200M$+ for an expansion team would be stupid.

The next few months will be fun to watch.

GF is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:18 AM
  #532
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
Not to worry. In 2014 they'll just borrow from a few funds to finance the repayment to the funds! What happens to the lease after November 4, 2014 will be interesting.
its too bad that jobing isn't shaped like a pyramid.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:27 AM
  #533
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
It looks like the COG did move $20 million to the NHL. Seems like they are still $5million short if the true figure was $25 million.



http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen.../111312-14.pdf
Yes as per the agreement the $20 million was moved into escrow. An additional $5 million was to be transferred with 5 days (i believe it was 5) of the Coyotes season ending. There is no indication of that money ever transferring.

According to Clarke in her recent radio interview the $20 million remains in escrow and the city is still rtrying to negotiate a repayment plan with the NHL to pay it over a number of years.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:31 AM
  #534
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Yes as per the agreement the $20 million was moved into escrow. An additional $5 million was to be transferred with 5 days (i believe it was 5) of the Coyotes season ending. There is no indication of that money ever transferring.

According to Clarke in her recent radio interview the $20 million remains in escrow and the city is still rtrying to negotiate a repayment plan with the NHL to pay it over a number of years.
Please excuse my ignorance. I was thinking that if the $20M is already in escrow, it is gone, and there is no such thing as a 'payment plan.' Right? I mean, the 20M is real money, and it's in an escrow fund. It's already gone from the city some way.

But, the 5M, I could see a 'negotiation' about that.

Thanks

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:37 AM
  #535
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Please excuse my ignorance. I was thinking that if the $20M is already in escrow, it is gone, and there is no such thing as a 'payment plan.' Right? I mean, the 20M is real money, and it's in an escrow fund. It's already gone from the city some way.

But, the 5M, I could see a 'negotiation' about that.

Thanks
Well I guess technically it is gone. The NHL has the right to withdraw it as they see fit (assuming they have the actual cash losses of at least that amount).

I believe the city wants the NHL to return the $20 million to them and then work out a payment plan. Clarke's argument is that the city has done a lot for the NHL in working out a lease etc and the NHL should return the favour by helping the city out cause it has budget issues.

Who knows how willing the NHL would be to such an arrangement. Mayor Scruggs had brought it up many months ago as well.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #536
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Who knows how willing the NHL would be to such an arrangement. Mayor Scruggs had brought it up many months ago as well.
I think we all know "how willing the NHL would be to such an arrangement."

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:42 AM
  #537
Frodo Baggins
Registered User
 
Frodo Baggins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/sp...=tw-share&_r=0

some optimism

Frodo Baggins is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:47 AM
  #538
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Yes as per the agreement the $20 million was moved into escrow. An additional $5 million was to be transferred with 5 days (i believe it was 5) of the Coyotes season ending. There is no indication of that money ever transferring.
If I was advising the NHL, I would leverage the Beasley Transfers and the escrow. Transfers created a $20MM budget problem? There just happens to be $20MM sitting in escrow. Want to solve your budget problem, Glendale? Sign the JIG Lease and we will release those funds back to you so you don't have to cut anything else. Pay us back $5MM per year later (plus interest).

Glendale loves a cash today, pay tomorrow plan. I think that tomorrow's meeting is much more important than anything that might happen on 11/27. The tea leaves will likely be pretty easy to read during the budget discussion. Besides, why would anyone assume that Clark knows what she's talking about? She went on a radio program and announced the lease will be coming. I feel like I've heard that from her before.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:03 AM
  #539
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,663
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
Not to worry. In 2014 they'll just borrow from a few funds to finance the repayment to the funds! What happens to the lease after November 4, 2014 will be interesting.
Glendale is just paying off one credit card with another credit card at this point. It's gonna catch up with them soon.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:53 AM
  #540
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
If I was advising the NHL, I would leverage the Beasley Transfers and the escrow. Transfers created a $20MM budget problem? There just happens to be $20MM sitting in escrow. Want to solve your budget problem, Glendale? Sign the JIG Lease and we will release those funds back to you so you don't have to cut anything else. Pay us back $5MM per year later (plus interest).

Glendale loves a cash today, pay tomorrow plan. I think that tomorrow's meeting is much more important than anything that might happen on 11/27. The tea leaves will likely be pretty easy to read during the budget discussion. Besides, why would anyone assume that Clark knows what she's talking about? She went on a radio program and announced the lease will be coming. I feel like I've heard that from her before.
I agree that the budget discussions tomorrow are important. Skeete and the COG are on the hot seat related to the recent audit, and they obviously are now going to have to budget for the upcoming need to pay back the NHL's subsidy.

A payment plan might help them with their internal compliance, but just defers the pain to future budgets and council members. So, instead of paying it out now, they'll have to increase future payments to Jamison and the NHL to over $20 million per year for several years.

What it boils down to is the political and financial considerations of whether the COG can and should continue to provide such substantial subsidies as the price to keep the Coyotes. The factors have changed dramatically in the past 2-3 years. For one, Glendale's budget has been blown apart by the recession and the $50 million in subsidies to the NHL out of their General Fund. Also, the arrival of the Tanger outlet and Cabela's has probably changed the calculus regarding the financial fortunes of Westgate. Previous dubious claims about the importance of the Coyotes seem even less believable with the expectation of a large influx of customers associated with the other retail outlets.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:00 PM
  #541
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,735
vCash: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
The NHL would always be secondary in the Seattle market. The goal is to get an NBA team first and then look at the NHL as a minor tenant alongside an NBA team. Sure... Quebec is a small market but (like Winnipeg) the owner of the team would also own the arena and glean all accompanying revenue from the new facility. Not saying the NHL wouldn't work in Seattle but if you want a "slam dunk" market (pardon the pun)..... Quebec is the place to go.

The attractiveness of Quebec could lead the NHL to think they could reap massive expansive fees from PKP but whose to say PKP would go that route. But... this IS the NHL.... a league where things are done that more often than not... defy logic.
The NHL is secondary (if even that) in every single American market, though.... except maybe, maybe Buffalo and that's only because the Bills suck and most fans probably think that they're going to relocate relatively soon anyway, so I wouldn't think that that'd be a knock against them, per se.

But, if anything, your point would probably indicate that the NHL would rather relocate a team to Seattle and expand into Quebec City to maximize the potential financial windful that they could get out of both markets initially. Although QC is by far the most NHL-ready market right now, so you'd think that'd weigh more heavily in favor of them for relocation....

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:15 PM
  #542
barneyg
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
They are proposing to defer that repayment out of the General Fund until 2014 (thank you for the parting gifts Beasley, Clark and Frate). (...) If the lame duck council passes a "midnight ordinance" for Jamison's lease, then in 2014 alone, the incoming mayor and council will be saddled with a $35 million bill for the Coyotes' subsidies (2014 AMF and the 2012 subsidy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas L View Post
Not to worry. In 2014 they'll just borrow from a few funds to finance the repayment to the funds! What happens to the lease after November 4, 2014 will be interesting.
I believe both of you guys have it wrong. Taken from the 11/27 meeting agenda (also linked above):

Quote:
A repayment schedule similar to the FY 2011 loan for that FY’s payment to the NHL will be incorporated into the FY 2014 budget.
The FY 2011 repayment schedule is 1 million per year for 25 years IIRC (it's in the 2011 annual report). So starting in 2014, the general fund expense will be the AMF at that time, but the GF will be reduced by AMF+2 million for the next 25 years (1 million each for the 2011 and 2012 transfers). No big payment in 2014.

Not sure anybody else noticed this hilarious sentence:

Quote:
Staff is requesting that Council waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance approving the FY 2011-12 budget amendments.
Don't worry, staff.

barneyg is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:36 PM
  #543
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I agree that the budget discussions tomorrow are important. Skeete and the COG are on the hot seat related to the recent audit, and they obviously are now going to have to budget for the upcoming need to pay back the NHL's subsidy.
Sometimes I don't slow down and discuss the nuances enough.

The agenda item for tomorrow's meeting is to approve the Clean-Up Ordinance schedule. By itself, that's one of the more benign events in municipal governance. Many local govs use a Clean-Up Ord as part of their budget process. It just approves the final accounting to close last year. They're not changing anything for this FY year at all. In most places, this item is not even severed for discussion at a board/council meeting.

But Glendale is a bit different.

What the agenda item does, specifically the call outs related to the Coyotes, is provide a platform to discuss the current year's problems even though the agenda item is related to last year. The Coyote call outs are $1.3MM in revenue above projection on the plus side; $1.1MM for repayment of the first fee paid to the NHL and $20MM in transfers for the second NHL fee on the negative side.

If and how these transfers are discussed during tomorrow's meeting will provide some insight into how this is going to wind down. At this point, it's difficult to focus so much on the Coyotes as the city has such massive and widespread problems. The failure of fiduciary duty in Glendale is at an order of magnitude that is really just stunning. The agenda item is for last year so it doesn't contemplate the Beasley Transfers at all. It will be interesting to see if there is discussion about the audit. It seems like they might want to discuss it, since Glendale is very likely looking at misconduct that extends far beyond the Arena/Coyotes. Sure, paying the $50MM was the kill shot that collapsed the pyramid and no competent council would ever have agreed to the NHL terms at bankruptcy; at the first $25MM; or the second $25MM. But on top of all of that, now they know the GF ledger is cooked. Even an incompetent council would stop and figure out exactly what is going on, right? Would a reasonable municipal board that is 4/7 lame duck approve a debt obligation of over $300MM for an agreement primarily negotiated by a city manager who was just featured in an audit report for bid rigging and unauthorized fund transfers, when the audit action plan results in an estimated GF balance of (-$20MM)?

I don't know, Glendale is a bit different. It's going to be great to see what they do with this.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:41 PM
  #544
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Sometimes I don't slow down and discuss the nuances enough.

The agenda item for tomorrow's meeting is to approve the Clean-Up Ordinance schedule. By itself, that's one of the more benign events in municipal governance. Many local govs use a Clean-Up Ord as part of their budget process. It just approves the final accounting to close last year. They're not changing anything for this FY year at all. In most places, this item is not even severed for discussion at a board/council meeting.

But Glendale is a bit different.

What the agenda item does, specifically the call outs related to the Coyotes, is provide a platform to discuss the current year's problems even though the agenda item is related to last year. The Coyote call outs are $1.3MM in revenue above projection on the plus side; $1.1MM for repayment of the first fee paid to the NHL and $20MM in transfers for the second NHL fee on the negative side.

If and how these transfers are discussed during tomorrow's meeting will provide some insight into how this is going to wind down. At this point, it's difficult to focus so much on the Coyotes as the city has such massive and widespread problems. The failure of fiduciary duty in Glendale is at an order of magnitude that is really just stunning. The agenda item is for last year so it doesn't contemplate the Beasley Transfers at all. It will be interesting to see if there is discussion about the audit. It seems like they might want to discuss it, since Glendale is very likely looking at misconduct that extends far beyond the Arena/Coyotes. Sure, paying the $50MM was the kill shot that collapsed the pyramid and no competent council would ever have agreed to the NHL terms at bankruptcy; at the first $25MM; or the second $25MM. But on top of all of that, now they know the GF ledger is cooked. Even an incompetent council would stop and figure out exactly what is going on, right? Would a reasonable municipal board that is 4/7 lame duck approve a debt obligation of over $300MM for an agreement primarily negotiated by a city manager who was just featured in an audit report for bid rigging and unauthorized fund transfers, when the audit action plan results in an estimated GF balance of (-$20MM)?

I don't know, Glendale is a bit different. It's going to be great to see what they do with this.
Man, I could really use your expertise to completely understand the intricacies of the Glendale saga to write my next article on this messy situation!

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:12 PM
  #545
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Sometimes I don't slow down and discuss the nuances enough.
Thanks for the more in-depth analysis.

Quote:
Would a reasonable municipal board that is 4/7 lame duck approve a debt obligation of over $300MM for an agreement primarily negotiated by a city manager who was just featured in an audit report for bid rigging and unauthorized fund transfers, when the audit action plan results in an estimated GF balance of (-$20MM)?
Sure, why not go all out on this? Moreover, I think that they shouldn't try to find out who will actually purchase the Coyotes and benefit from the bloated AMF. That would ruin the surprise for the incoming mayor and council.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:19 PM
  #546
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
The FY 2011 repayment schedule is 1 million per year for 25 years IIRC (it's in the 2011 annual report). So starting in 2014, the general fund expense will be the AMF at that time, but the GF will be reduced by AMF+2 million for the next 25 years (1 million each for the 2011 and 2012 transfers). No big payment in 2014.
That's my understanding as well.

- GF/HURF pays back $1.1MM per year on the first NHL fee.
- For the 2nd NHL fee, this year is only transferring the $20MM out of the Vehicle Replacement, PC Replacement, Water and Sewer.
- Repaying that 2nd fee starts in FY14 at ~$1.1MM per year from the GF.

There are no ballon payments from the GF on the AMFs. Barney has a good point: From a GF perspective, there's already a $2.2MM annual liability to repay the two NHL fee years. That is separate and, in addition to, any AMF paid to JIG in a potential new lease.

The ballon payments that are due this year, which are currently unfunded, are GF liability to replenish the mandatory Risk and Workers Comp funds to reconcile the Beasley Transfers. (*They might also want to find out how many other accounts were involved in Fast Eddie's Fund Mania.)


Last edited by CasualFan: 11-12-2012 at 02:42 PM.
CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:48 PM
  #547
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post

Beasley created a "per project" scheme where he paid contractors amounts under $50k so they wouldn't have to be reported instead of the ethical practice of "per initiative" contracts. Basically, if you performed a $300k service for the city, Fast Eddie allowed you to invoice 6 separate projects at $50k each so your contract didn't have to be approved by council. He also allowed brokers to perform services and receive payments beyond scope of their RFPs.
This is awesome. And obviously the answer to Glendale's prayers. Why waste all this time trying to approve a $320 million AMF? Do it the Beasley way - just reduce it to a series of invoices for one day's worth of arena management fees. One year at $15 million is only $41,095.89 per day, well under the $50,000 threshold. The city council doesn't even need to approve it!!!

CGG is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:52 PM
  #548
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
This is awesome. And obviously the answer to Glendale's prayers. Why waste all this time trying to approve a $320 million AMF? Do it the Beasley way - just reduce it to a series of invoices for one day's worth of arena management fees. One year at $15 million is only $41,095.89 per day, well under the $50,000 threshold. The city council doesn't even need to approve it!!!
Glendale Visionary.

Great post.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:00 PM
  #549
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Great post.
.... ya. Cash Daly.

Killion is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:36 PM
  #550
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,357
vCash: 500
Tanger to bring 85 new stores to Westgate in Glendale

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...-glendale.html

Tanger, they said, should make Westgate less dependent on the fate of Jobing.com Arena, which remains iced in controversy as the city continues to try to work out a deal with potential Phoenix Coyotes buyer Greg Jamison.

Glendale leaders have spent the past three years seeking a buyer to keep the professional hockey franchise and the fans in the city. One potential buyer after another dropped out of negotiations in that time.

Tanger Outlets did not seek any financial help from the city. Instead, the mall is expected to generate $2.5 million in annual sales tax. The Tanger project cost about $76 million to build, company officials said.


Amazing how viable businesses don't need handouts from the CoG.

cbcwpg 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 01:12 PM.

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.