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
11-13-2012, 09:42 AM
  #601
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vatali View Post
The Blues deal has closed already, and other than Stillman and the Taylors, are his investors named? I havn't seen anywhere where they are listed, just speculation as well. I'm not sure PHO is a president setter here.
Well with changing demographics AZ could become more of a battleground state in the future.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:40 AM
  #602
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
vCash: 500
Through this entire mess, one question remains unanswered in my mind.

Exactly from where do the current supporters of the Yotes expect new fans to be recruited?

The status of people prevented from actively supporting the team due to Jobing's location isn't changing.

The current fanbase isn't generating anywhere near the necessary revenue(as in a $25 million shortfall, or so, annually).

Won't anybody outside those 2 groups(and who would appear to be the ONLY potential source of new support) be permanently turned off from EVER becoming Yotes supporters by the team's neverending plea for tax revenue subsidy?

i.e. Does the NHL, Greg Jamison, Joyce Clarke et al imagine Glendale citizens saying:
"I'm REALLY upset that firemen, policemen and other public services have to compete with subsidizing an NHL team for our tax dollars; but HEY!, what the hell, let's buy a ticket and catch a hockey game at the Job?"

A lame duck Glendale city council ramming through an AMF as it's on the way out the door will only turnoff any potential unrecruited NHL fans even more convincingly.

checkerdome is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:43 AM
  #603
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,659
vCash: 1989
Remember the good ol'days: two weeks not months, a good partner, not too distant future, happy to be here, excited, very excited, care deeply, future bright.....



sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 11:57 AM
  #604
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
Remember the good ol'days: two weeks not months, a good partner, not too distant future, happy to be here, excited, very excited, care deeply, future bright.....


This came to my mind.

Quote:
Just two good old boys, never meanin' no harm....


Just two good ol' boys, wouldn't change if they could,
This is a couple days old but Gramps will be ready in two weeks. as long as Skeete plays by his rules.

Quote:
A reworked $320million deal was presented to the council last month that would lighten the city’s payments in the early years and build in penalties if Jamison doesn’t bring in a minimum number of non-hockey events each year and for each game not played because of a lockout. A labor dispute has thus far halted this year’s NHL season.

Skeete said Jamison conceptually agreed to some of the changes but has since offered alternatives, on which they have not come to an agreement. Skeete said two sticking points are the penalties, but he wouldn’t provide details on the other two.

“We have tried to be helpful,” Jamison said last week in regards to renegotiating the deal that council already had voted on.

He said he was hopeful and expects the reworked deal to go back to council for a vote in two weeks.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...cal-shift.html

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:24 PM
  #605
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,844
vCash: 350
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...cal-shift.html

“To residents, she was the face of everything that’s gone wrong in Glendale — of the tax, of the Coyotes, of Camelback Ranch,” he said.

Chavira has called the agreement with Jamison a sweetheart deal. He and Weiers say the city needs a better deal and call on current leaders to let the new council have a say on the matter as it will impact their terms on council.


Should have thought about that before running in the election.

“I would hope that the current council understands that there’s going to be a big change on council, that they need to give the new folks a chance on decisions that affect us,” Weiers said.

That doesn’t appear likely.

Clark and Martinez said it’s more important to finish the deal and end uncertainty about the team’s future that began in 2009 when the owner filed the team into bankruptcy. The National Hockey League has operated the team since then.

Both said they are the elected officials with three years of experience dealing with the issue.

“Let me tell you something, I’m a duly elected council member,” Clark said last week on a Valley radio sports-talk show.


Not sure I would want to put the last 3 years on my resume.

Of course the out-going will not let the in-coming have a say. The CoG couldn't ram it thru on Nov 27th if that was the case. Clark wants this agreement with Jamison to go thru no matter what and no matter the damage to the CoG. It's her legacy, and she wants a statue built in her honor some day. The newly elected are going to be trying to put bandages on a gaping gash that needs stitches. Good luck to them.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:28 PM
  #606
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
This came to my mind.



This is a couple days old but Gramps will be ready in two weeks. as long as Skeete plays by his rules.



http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...cal-shift.html
I found the following information from Skeete interesting.

Quote:
Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete last week said if voters had repealed the tax increase, estimated to bring in about $25million annually for five years, the deal would have died.

“It would have been much, much too heavy,” Skeete said.
This completely contradicts the financial rationale for the deal that was presented in June. At that time, the COG presented an economic analysis by TL Hocking and Pollack that indicated that the direct benefits of the Coyotes lease exceeded the costs. In that case, retaining or losing the sales tax increase is a moot point, because Skeete claimed that it would cost more to lose the Coyotes than to keep them, with or without the tax. In fact, you could argue that if the sales tax had been overturned it would have been even more important to keep the Coyotes as the less expensive option.

Of course, it was all a crock based on "Clarkonomics" and false and misleading analyses from TL Hocking that was presented to the council and citizens of Glendale.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:33 PM
  #607
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post

“Let me tell you something, I’m a duly elected council member,” Clark said last week on a Valley radio sports-talk show.
[/I]


Of course the out-going will not let the in-coming have a say. The CoG couldn't ram it thru on Nov 27th if that was the case. Clark wants this agreement with Jamison to go thru no matter what and no matter the damage to the CoG. It's her legacy, and she wants a statue built in her honor some day. The newly elected are going to be trying to put bandages on a gaping gash that needs stitches. Good luck to them.
Someone needs to remind Clark that she was "duly unelected" last week.

It doesn't matter whether or not this comes to council for a vote later this month before Clark wanders off into the sunset, I can't see it withstanding subsequent legal and political maneuvers.

If Jamison and the NHL don't have any ideas about substantially changing the deal in favor of Glendale, then I think the Jamison / Coyotes era will go the same way as Reinsdorf, IEH and Hulsizer.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:41 PM
  #608
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,659
vCash: 1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I found the following information from Skeete interesting.



This completely contradicts the financial rationale for the deal that was presented in June. At that time, the COG presented an economic analysis by TL Hocking and Pollack that indicated that the direct benefits of the Coyotes lease exceeded the costs. In that case, retaining or losing the sales tax increase is a moot point, because Skeete claimed that it would cost more to lose the Coyotes than to keep them, with or without the tax. In fact, you could argue that if the sales tax had been overturned it would have been even more important to keep the Coyotes as the less expensive option.

Of course, it was all a crock based on "Clarkonomics" and false and misleading analyses from TL Hocking that was presented to the council and citizens of Glendale.
Also contradicts the rational for implementing the sales tax increase in the first place and the subsequent vote to keep it, the tax increase was pitched as extra revenue to keep Glendale safe, police and fire-fighting, keeping the festivals and keeping the air-conditioner running at COG city hall.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:46 PM
  #609
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I found the following information from Skeete interesting.



This completely contradicts the financial rationale for the deal that was presented in June. At that time, the COG presented an economic analysis by TL Hocking and Pollack that indicated that the direct benefits of the Coyotes lease exceeded the costs. In that case, retaining or losing the sales tax increase is a moot point, because Skeete claimed that it would cost more to lose the Coyotes than to keep them, with or without the tax. In fact, you could argue that if the sales tax had been overturned it would have been even more important to keep the Coyotes as the less expensive option.

Of course, it was all a crock based on "Clarkonomics" and false and misleading analyses from TL Hocking that was presented to the council and citizens of Glendale.

Well said!


Sure does. City better off with the deal than without. That is what was presented.

Of course it would be even more important to sign the lease if the tax was reversed as the Coyotes generate so much revenue for the city.

I also recall hearing that the tax increase had nothing to do with the Coyotes. It seems rather odd that had it been reversed the Coyotes would be doomed. Skeetenomics is now all the rage in Glendale.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:55 PM
  #610
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
I am going to make a prediction.

A lease will go to vote on the 27th. It will be a recently revised lease that GJ and the JSG have presented to Skeete and that Skeete is currently not able to digest. None of the 4 sticking points adjusted in a desireable fashion for the COG.

I fully expect Skeete to not recommend council to sign the lease much the same way he presented ammendments to the June lease as the city could no longer afford it.

I also fully expect Skeete to tell the COG that this will be GJ and the JSG's final offer before they walk away from the deal.

I fully expect the four amigos to vote in favour of the lease and then the real fun will begin.

Yes, this has many holes in it. Fire away.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:59 PM
  #611
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
Also contradicts the rational for implementing the sales tax increase in the first place and the subsequent vote to keep it, the tax increase was pitched as extra revenue to keep Glendale safe, police and fire-fighting, keeping the festivals and keeping the air-conditioner running at COG city hall.
Some funds were also ear marked for the COG paper shredder and hard drive removal fund.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:31 PM
  #612
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
I'm wondering at this point what the range of possible resolutions are. Here is where I think everything stands.

1. Lease renegotiated, Jamison has investors lined up, new CBA agreed upon, NHL selsl to Jamison, team stays.

2. Jamison deal falls through, and absent mystery owner #4 appearing, NHL contiues to owe the team. As I understand it, the AMF has been extended in 30 day intervals and would need to be extended for a season by the new Powers that Be in the CoG.

3. Jamison deal falls through, and absent mystery owner #4 appearing, NHL contiues to owe the team without a new AMF subsidy, and covers all losses for this season. Seems even more far-fetched as #1.

4. Relocation. Also far fetched because the time between CBA signing and the start of the season will be a couple of weeks.

5. Contraction.

Any other possibilities, or any holes in any of the above potential outcomes? I only see 1, 2 and 5 as possible. I can't remember who mentioned contraction first back in the spring (CF?), but it seems more and more plausible as we move closer to a potential CBA resolution and with the new city government.

Ludwig Fell Down is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:32 PM
  #613
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
I am going to make a prediction.

A lease will go to vote on the 27th. It will be a recently revised lease that GJ and the JSG have presented to Skeete and that Skeete is currently not able to digest. None of the 4 sticking points adjusted in a desireable fashion for the COG.

I fully expect Skeete to not recommend council to sign the lease much the same way he presented ammendments to the June lease as the city could no longer afford it.

I also fully expect Skeete to tell the COG that this will be GJ and the JSG's final offer before they walk away from the deal.

I fully expect the four amigos to vote in favour of the lease and then the real fun will begin.

Yes, this has many holes in it. Fire away.
If Skeete wishes to ingratiate himself with his new bosses then he'd be best advised to recommend that the outgoing council NOT approve whatever form the latest and greatest lease agreement will hold. Nothing says "You're Fired" more than going against the likely wishes of the people you'll be answering to come early January.

As for the vote..... it's likely to be 3-3 with Knaack being the swing vote..... perhaps the possibility of being recalled has her quaking in her boots.

If GJ graces the council with his presence on November 27th I hope the new mayor is there as well reminding GJ the new sheriff is watching and is not amused.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:50 PM
  #614
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
What we're now down to is more or less a philosophical question; should cities be in the sports business? Glendale said yes to that a long time ago, which is why you see two amazing facilities, surrounded by retail, in a glorified suburb. To turn back on that now is childish and shortsighted.
Cities? Maybe. Regions? yeah it depends. Suburbs? no.

When the main city in a region puts up an arena or stadium, yeah it enhances the image of the city. Improves quality of life, etc. Same when its done on a regional basis. When its done by whats essentially a town than no. Having multiple sports teams in an arena is good for the image as a major league city and makes it a more desirable place to live. If you like sports and you have the choice to live in a city that has 3 teams vs a city with no sports you many gravitate there.

That being said for a suburb to pick up most of the tab is insane. They don't get any of the non-economic benefits. If not for this disaster, how many people not from Arizona know that the team was located in Glendale? Also the incremental benefit of a 4th team isn't worth as much because you already have all the seasons of the year covered. Especially if it requires building ANOTHER venue

aqib is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:53 PM
  #615
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
If Skeete wishes to ingratiate himself with his new bosses then he'd be best advised to recommend that the outgoing council NOT approve whatever form the latest and greatest lease agreement will hold. Nothing says "You're Fired" more than going against the likely wishes of the people you'll be answering to come early January.

As for the vote..... it's likely to be 3-3 with Knaack being the swing vote..... perhaps the possibility of being recalled has her quaking in her boots.

If GJ graces the council with his presence on November 27th I hope the new mayor is there as well reminding GJ the new sheriff is watching and is not amused.
That would assume Cactus Phil doesn't remain in sunny California and comes out of retirement for one last vote. All indications are that Phil has vammosed from Arizona and exited Glendale politics forever.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:56 PM
  #616
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
That would assume Cactus Phil doesn't remain in sunny California and comes out of retirement for one last vote. All indications are that Phil has vammosed from Arizona and exited Glendale politics forever.
Yeah Liberman has vacated his seat as of the end of Oct I believe. He wanted the newly elected member to take his seat before the official end of his term. Not sure if that's happening.



Quote:
He said, “I am leaving two months before the end of my term. The reason I’m leaving is whoever is elected to replace me deserves to be seated immediately because he will have to make decisions that will affect my wonderful constituents. We have a history of councilmembers being appointed by council.

“My term officially ends Dec. 31. But because of the tremendous financial mess Glendale is in, whoever replaces me will have to live with the decisions he makes, not mine, for the next five years. I hope, by 2017, the economy will show some signs of coming to life.”
http://www.glendalestar.com/news/art...9bb2963f4.html


Opposite attitude of Clarke who wants to make her mark before exiting for the new council to deal with.

cheswick is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:07 PM
  #617
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Yeah Liberman has vacated his seat as of the end of Oct I believe. He wanted the newly elected member to take his seat before the official end of his term. Not sure if that's happening.





http://www.glendalestar.com/news/art...9bb2963f4.html


Opposite attitude of Clarke who wants to make her mark before exiting for the new council to deal with.
Sources aside, I thought Phil asked willy d. to take his place as a voting member of the COG council. A key to the city type of thing.

Daly will forever be known to the citizens of Glendale for his " it's only an insurance policy, it will never be used"

Really? $25 million later, or is it $45million or $50 million. Hey is it a payment plan.

Glendale citizens should build the William Daly statue beside the Joyce Clark statue outside jobing.com.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:08 PM
  #618
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,844
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
That would assume Cactus Phil doesn't remain in sunny California and comes out of retirement for one last vote. All indications are that Phil has vammosed from Arizona and exited Glendale politics forever.
Could get interesting on a vote on the Coyotes. According to the CoG Charter:

Sec. 12. - Vacancies in council and office of mayor.

The council, by a majority vote of its remaining members, shall fill the vacancies in its own membership and in the office of mayor for the unexpired terms.


So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote?

Sec. 17. - Failure to vote.

No member of the council shall be excused from voting, except upon matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or if a conflict of interest exists as defined by the laws of this state pertaining to conflict of interest of officials and employees. In all other cases a failure to vote shall be entered on the minutes as an affirmative vote.


If the CoG decides to not fill Phil's seat, is this considered a failure to vote by Phil, which automatically becomes a YES vote?

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:09 PM
  #619
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Yeah Liberman has vacated his seat as of the end of Oct I believe. He wanted the newly elected member to take his seat before the official end of his term. Not sure if that's happening.

.
That could be a problem as I believe they are still counting the ballots and no winner has been declared.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:13 PM
  #620
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Could get interesting on a vote on the Coyotes. According to the CoG Charter:

Sec. 12. - Vacancies in council and office of mayor.

The council, by a majority vote of its remaining members, shall fill the vacancies in its own membership and in the office of mayor for the unexpired terms.


So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote?

Sec. 17. - Failure to vote.

No member of the council shall be excused from voting, except upon matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or if a conflict of interest exists as defined by the laws of this state pertaining to conflict of interest of officials and employees. In all other cases a failure to vote shall be entered on the minutes as an affirmative vote.


If the CoG decides to not fill Phil's seat, is this considered a failure to vote by Phil, which automatically becomes a YES vote?
Hmmmm. Maybe Phils's vote becomes a NO vote?

If they were voting to legalize Casino's and Brothels's would it be an automatic "YES" or "NO".

or does Phil know that no legal vote can happen without him?

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:14 PM
  #621
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If the CoG decides to not fill Phil's seat, is this considered a failure to vote by Phil, which automatically becomes a YES vote?
They could propose to "table" the offer for 2 weeks for further public input. Phil himself proposed this last time they steamrolled through an AMF vote. Assuming they get the 2 remaining anti-Yotes votes plus Knack growing a conscience, a Phil automatic "YES" vote would delay everything until the new council comes in.

CGG is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:21 PM
  #622
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
They could propose to "table" the offer for 2 weeks for further public input. Phil himself proposed this last time they steamrolled through an AMF vote. Assuming they get the 2 remaining anti-Yotes votes plus Knack growing a conscience, a Phil automatic "YES" vote would delay everything until the new council comes in.
If the NHL and NHLPA ever come to an agreement I would expect another "emergency" vote. Afterall the season will need to start ASAP. GJ and the JSG may have been eager to go down this path for some time.

GJ and the JSG have at least 2 leases that are pallatable to them. The COG and Skeete have Zero.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:24 PM
  #623
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
I'm wondering at this point what the range of possible resolutions are. Here is where I think everything stands.

1. Lease renegotiated, Jamison has investors lined up, new CBA agreed upon, NHL selsl to Jamison, team stays.

2. Jamison deal falls through, and absent mystery owner #4 appearing, NHL contiues to owe the team. As I understand it, the AMF has been extended in 30 day intervals and would need to be extended for a season by the new Powers that Be in the CoG.

3. Jamison deal falls through, and absent mystery owner #4 appearing, NHL contiues to owe the team without a new AMF subsidy, and covers all losses for this season. Seems even more far-fetched as #1.

4. Relocation. Also far fetched because the time between CBA signing and the start of the season will be a couple of weeks.

5. Contraction.

Any other possibilities, or any holes in any of the above potential outcomes? I only see 1, 2 and 5 as possible. I can't remember who mentioned contraction first back in the spring (CF?), but it seems more and more plausible as we move closer to a potential CBA resolution and with the new city government.

I think you forgot the most likely scenario, based on past history. The COG will approve the lease by majority vote of council, and then there will be a flurry of legal and political activity (including the launch of a referendum campaign to overturn the ordinance). Everything will go into a frozen and confused silence without any obvious movement towards a sale of the franchise or consummation of the lease agreement by actually signing it. The NHL will try to get Glendale to pay even more money to subsidize the management and operation of the arena this season by threatening imminent relocation, and so on, and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Sources aside, I thought Phil asked willy d. to take his place as a voting member of the COG council. A key to the city type of thing.

Daly will forever be known to the citizens of Glendale for his " it's only an insurance policy, it will never be used"

Really? $25 million later, or is it $45million or $50 million. Hey is it a payment plan.

Glendale citizens should build the William Daly statue beside the Joyce Clark statue outside jobing.com.
No worries about the payment plan for the NHL subsidy over the past two years. The annual sales tax revenues from the new Tanger outlet will cover that over the next couple of decades. I'm pretty sure that was in the long term plans for the Tanger development anyway. It was to generate sales tax to pay for 2 years of subsidies to the NHL.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:42 PM
  #624
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Could get interesting on a vote on the Coyotes. According to the CoG Charter:

Sec. 12. - Vacancies in council and office of mayor.

The council, by a majority vote of its remaining members, shall fill the vacancies in its own membership and in the office of mayor for the unexpired terms.


So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote?

Sec. 17. - Failure to vote.

No member of the council shall be excused from voting, except upon matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or if a conflict of interest exists as defined by the laws of this state pertaining to conflict of interest of officials and employees. In all other cases a failure to vote shall be entered on the minutes as an affirmative vote.


If the CoG decides to not fill Phil's seat, is this considered a failure to vote by Phil, which automatically becomes a YES vote?
They can get sued for intentionally not filling the seat. They don't have to pick one of the people who ran for the seat. Last I read it was too close the call and even absent recounts results don't become official until 10 days after the election. They can pick anyone they want who fits whatever the eligibility requirements. I would love it if they picked Arthur Thurston!

aqib is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:57 PM
  #625
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I think you forgot the most likely scenario, based on past history. The COG will approve the lease by majority vote of council, and then there will be a flurry of legal and political activity (including the launch of a referendum campaign to overturn the ordinance). Everything will go into a frozen and confused silence without any obvious movement towards a sale of the franchise or consummation of the lease agreement by actually signing it. The NHL will try to get Glendale to pay even more money to subsidize the management and operation of the arena this season by threatening imminent relocation, and so on, and so on.



No worries about the payment plan for the NHL subsidy over the past two years. The annual sales tax revenues from the new Tanger outlet will cover that over the next couple of decades. I'm pretty sure that was in the long term plans for the Tanger development anyway. It was to generate sales tax to pay for 2 years of subsidies to the NHL.
Why doesn't Tanger just buy the Yotes then, problem solved!

Oh, wait sorry, batteries died in sarcasm detector....

I must say I'm rather impressed at the Tanger situation, I would say that putting 80 plus stores in an area where there hasn't been a whole lot of success, in the midst of some very trying economic times-either they know something we don't, or they're taking a HUGE gamble that will either make them like geniuses or like......not geniuses.....

Tinalera 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 07:54 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.