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 LXVI: Get Your Kicks On Thread LXVI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2012, 09:16 AM
  #876
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,908
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
There is also the small matter of the lockout going on right now. The revenue split with the players isn't likely to have a big impact on how profitable the Coyotes will be. They will still be losing lots of money, even after the deal with the COG. But revenue sharing could be. The problem here is he doesn't have a say in how much he'll get, at least as far as we know. If he closes on the deal, but the revenue sharing isn't enough to make the Coyotes profitable, he's stuck with them.
The revenue sharing will be a problem for all the teams that currently receive it. Although the NHL is proposing an increase to the revenue sharing pie, they are also reducing the restrictions for being eligible for revenue sharing. I posted an article from St. Louis that has the same concerns..... The pie might be bigger, but the number of teams eating the pie could be bigger, resulting in less pie for everyone.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:33 AM
  #877
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,987
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
The revenue sharing will be a problem for all the teams that currently receive it. Although the NHL is proposing an increase to the revenue sharing pie, they are also reducing the restrictions for being eligible for revenue sharing. I posted an article from St. Louis that has the same concerns..... The pie might be bigger, but the number of teams eating the pie could be bigger, resulting in less pie for everyone.
Well it wouldn't be less pie for everyone. It'd be more pie for those that previously didn't qualify.

cheswick is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:30 AM
  #878
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
This vagueness is a bit troubling, particularly after he has had more than a year to put together his investment group. I would have thought that he would have been all set to go to close the deal ASAP after Glendale's approval of the lease. Instead, it's back to "maybes".

Meanwhile, it looks like Glendale is going to have quite a prolonged and unpleasant hangover from their binge with the NHL and Coyotes.
The mid January close date coincides with the final dates on which the season could potentially be salvaged. We all know the season will ultimately be cancelled, such an event will give GJ the cover he needs to say that because of the lockout he will not be able to complete the transaction. His game has always been to lie and deceive for as long as enough people are willing to believe him. Since nobody has bothered to seriously vet this guy his charade continues! What a joke!

Forbes Magagzine just came out with an article suggesting the only way the league survives long term is to reduce the number of teams to 20! They reason that the underlying TV contracts do not give enough revenues to the weaker teams, unlike the other big three! The result is continual wealth redistribution from rich teams to poor teams. Such a scheme does not hold up long term and in the end the rich teams revolt. Solution start the contraction now and reduce the number one a year for the forseeable future!

mesamonster is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:37 AM
  #879
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
The mid January close date coincides with the final dates on which the season could potentially be salvaged. We all know the season will ultimately be cancelled, such an event will give GJ the cover he needs to say that because of the lockout he will not be able to complete the transaction. His game has always been to lie and deceive for as long as enough people are willing to believe him. Since nobody has bothered to seriously vet this guy his charade continues! What a joke!

Forbes Magagzine just came out with an article suggesting the only way the league survives long term is to reduce the number of teams to 20! They reason that the underlying TV contracts do not give enough revenues to the weaker teams, unlike the other big three! The result is continual wealth redistribution from rich teams to poor teams. Such a scheme does not hold up long term and in the end the rich teams revolt. Solution start the contraction now and reduce the number one a year for the forseeable future!
You can't contract one at a time you need at least two to balance conference.

madhi19 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:46 AM
  #880
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
The mid January close date coincides with the final dates on which the season could potentially be salvaged. We all know the season will ultimately be cancelled, such an event will give GJ the cover he needs to say that because of the lockout he will not be able to complete the transaction. His game has always been to lie and deceive for as long as enough people are willing to believe him. Since nobody has bothered to seriously vet this guy his charade continues! What a joke!

Forbes Magagzine just came out with an article suggesting the only way the league survives long term is to reduce the number of teams to 20! They reason that the underlying TV contracts do not give enough revenues to the weaker teams, unlike the other big three! The result is continual wealth redistribution from rich teams to poor teams. Such a scheme does not hold up long term and in the end the rich teams revolt. Solution start the contraction now and reduce the number one a year for the forseeable future!
Hockey would do fine if it was just left up to the free market. If owners had to build their own arenas they would have less cash to pay players and yes hockey would still exist. It would even be more stable since an owner wouldn't be threatening to move if he built the place. Unlike what happens every year now, wah wah I need a better arena or I'm moving. If there was no rev sharing, teams would gravitate to places that were profitable. All the outside interference to grow the sport is the cause of the problem. Fans say the players at onetime received 75% of the hockey revenue. Well it survived without lockouts or strikes even when players made 75% of the cash and owners still built their own arenas.


Last edited by Confucius: 12-14-2012 at 10:52 AM.
Confucius is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:11 PM
  #881
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
You can't contract one at a time you need at least two to balance conference.
The league has gone with odd numbers before as they were 21 in the fold from 1979-1991. Not ideal for sure but it can be done in the short term until they expand by 1 again or wait for one more team to give up the ghost

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:39 PM
  #882
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Hockey would do fine if it was just left up to the free market. If owners had to build their own arenas they would have less cash to pay players and yes hockey would still exist. It would even be more stable since an owner wouldn't be threatening to move if he built the place. Unlike what happens every year now, wah wah I need a better arena or I'm moving. If there was no rev sharing, teams would gravitate to places that were profitable. All the outside interference to grow the sport is the cause of the problem. Fans say the players at onetime received 75% of the hockey revenue. Well it survived without lockouts or strikes even when players made 75% of the cash and owners still built their own arenas.
Of course teams could do well if left to the free market if you eliminate arbitration. that forced teams to play players certain amounts of salary. The AHL exists so there is hockey outside of the nhl in this country. Also ECHL. I don't know if ECHL does as well as AHL but it exists.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:48 PM
  #883
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Hockey would do fine if it was just left up to the free market. If owners had to build their own arenas they would have less cash to pay players and yes hockey would still exist. It would even be more stable since an owner wouldn't be threatening to move if he built the place. Unlike what happens every year now, wah wah I need a better arena or I'm moving. If there was no rev sharing, teams would gravitate to places that were profitable. All the outside interference to grow the sport is the cause of the problem. Fans say the players at onetime received 75% of the hockey revenue. Well it survived without lockouts or strikes even when players made 75% of the cash and owners still built their own arenas.
well at 75% there were banks telling the teams "get your salaries under control or we aren't renewing your line of credit" and there were owners who were hanging on saying "we are dumping this team if we don't get a cap in 04" the Oilers were tops in that group.

aqib is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:02 PM
  #884
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,401
vCash: 500
This is starting to smell like Glendale made the last move, so they are to blame.

Glendale set a end of January deadline, if for whatever reason Jamison does not close, the NHL won't blame him, but they will blame Glendale for not giving Jamison enough time, despite the fact that Jamison had years to close the deal.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:46 PM
  #885
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
The mid January close date coincides with the final dates on which the season could potentially be salvaged. We all know the season will ultimately be cancelled, such an event will give GJ the cover he needs to say that because of the lockout he will not be able to complete the transaction. His game has always been to lie and deceive for as long as enough people are willing to believe him. Since nobody has bothered to seriously vet this guy his charade continues! What a joke!
Agreed! He had 18months to buy the damn team. Time is up.

I think at this point, GJ is probably looking for an honourable way to save face. The NHL cancelling the season might be just the ticket. At that point, the NHL would also save face. They could say: we lost the only prospect buyer, CoG no longer can pay to keep the team, we did our best, good bye.

I can't wait to jan 31st to see if I'm right. But I think at this point, GB and GJ are both hoping to get out of this mess without losing face.

GF is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:08 PM
  #886
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 691
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
Agreed! He had 18months to buy the damn team. Time is up.

I think at this point, GJ is probably looking for an honourable way to save face. The NHL cancelling the season might be just the ticket. At that point, the NHL would also save face. They could say: we lost the only prospect buyer, CoG no longer can pay to keep the team, we did our best, good bye.

I can't wait to jan 31st to see if I'm right. But I think at this point, GB and GJ are both hoping to get out of this mess without losing face.
I have to agree. If the only thing holding up the deal was the lease then the sale should go through immediately after the ability to challenge the lease by referendum ends. There is no reason JIG could not buy the team immediately after he knows the lease is enforceable upon signing.

Why does he need the extra two weeks? Is it a delay tactic since he doesn't have the ability to close?

aj8000 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 03:42 PM
  #887
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,425
vCash: 500
I wonder when Jamison is going to let the COG and fans know the identity of "The Owner" of the team, who will be the third signatory to the tripartite lease agreement. It is almost incomprehensible that the COG has passed an ordinance for a >$300 million deal (that damaged their credit rating) without even knowing who the main beneficiary will be. The identity of the ownership group will have to be made known soon, since the NHL will have to conduct due diligence and approve the ownership. This is a very odd process.

Whileee is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:11 PM
  #888
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,390
vCash: 500
If the lease isn't signed by the time the new council gets sworn in, couldn't they overturn it?

aqib is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:13 PM
  #889
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
Nope. Don't take my word for it but here ya go -

In the valley, not all land is within city limits or town limits. Some of the land in Maricopa County is on what we simple folks out here call 'county islands'. Chalk it up to living in a desert the folks out here like the notion of 'islands in the sun' or something. Often, cities will annex unincorporated land when it is to their advantage. There are after all costs with annexing unincorporated land, one of them being you then have to provide the owners with city services (such as fire, water, police and such) - costs that you can of course bill for, but often there are costs for adding infrastructure which prompt cities to be deliberate about annexing.

The land they bought back around 2003 was unincorporated land bordering the city.

IIRC, they bought it on the downlow, not as the T'ohono Nation, but by using a variety of different corps, including iirc, Rainer Resources Inc which finally transferred the land into the tribe's name in 2009. Which is fine, not complaining, all legal, on the downlow.

Law 99-503 specifies that the tribe may purchase up to 10,000 acres (40 km2) unincorporated land in Pima, Pinal, or Maricopa Counties which the Federal Government will place into trust, thereby making it legally part of the Reservation (from wiki on the Tribe)

in 2009 they announced their plan to build the casino that land - unincorporated land.

They've been taken to court, which so far the courts have basically ruled the 99-503 is okay and tough nuts to Glendale and their friends (the state and other tribes). Time will tell how far the city goes to fight it; the tribe is okay with proceeding with their plans. The land they bought next to Glendale is less than 10,000 acres - but they can't buy incorporated land and claim it as reservation. Only unincorporated land in those three counties.


Westgate and where the arena sits is NOT on unincorporated land, it's in the city.

So no, while they can try and buy land, or a hospital, or an apartment complex, or shopping mall or any property in incorporated city limits in any of those three counties, they can't put slots or gaming tables in 'em.

I've been trying to figure out how some people think the tribe can make a profit out of owning the mall and the team when those same people keep saying the NHL and GJ can't make a profit owning the team. Maybe it's because they were thinking the tribe could put hundreds of slot machines in the mall and put lots of slots inside the Arena???

They can't.
Ah I stand corrected. Based on the way Scruggs was talking about it at the cupcake summit it sounded like they were buying within the incorporated city of Glendale

aqib is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:53 PM
  #890
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
If the lease isn't signed by the time the new council gets sworn in, couldn't they overturn it?
I think they could, but would they? They are in a bind. On the one hand, they don't want to vote the Coyotes out of Glendale, especially if they can blame the previous council for the upcoming onslaught of financial problems and cutbacks. On the other hand, they have indicated that they are against this sort of deal, and if they could follow through to change it, why wouldn't they? It will be based on political calculations. I think that what they should do is call Jamison on the carpet to provide them a briefing on the purchase process, including disclosure of the members of his investment group. If he refuses, then I think it would give them political cover for taking some action. If, however, they get the sense that his ownership bid is floundering, then they can just run out the clock and let him and the NHL bear the responsibility for the deal cratering. Either way, I think that they need to put pressure on him, if only to gauge what is likely to happen.

Whileee is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:54 PM
  #891
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Ah I stand corrected. Based on the way Scruggs was talking about it at the cupcake summit it sounded like they were buying within the incorporated city of Glendale
I never take it for granted that any of the Glendale council members know what they are talking about even when they are saying things in support of what I want to happen.

But we can always hope!


yotesreign is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 04:58 PM
  #892
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,908
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I think they could, but would they? They are in a bind. On the one hand, they don't want to vote the Coyotes out of Glendale, especially if they can blame the previous council for the upcoming onslaught of financial problems and cutbacks. On the other hand, they have indicated that they are against this sort of deal, and if they could follow through to change it, why wouldn't they? It will be based on political calculations. I think that what they should do is call Jamison on the carpet to provide them a briefing on the purchase process, including disclosure of the members of his investment group. If he refuses, then I think it would give them political cover for taking some action. If, however, they get the sense that his ownership bid is floundering, then they can just run out the clock and let him and the NHL bear the responsibility for the deal cratering. Either way, I think that they need to put pressure on him, if only to gauge what is likely to happen.



If the new council gets into power and actually get the opportunity to nix this deal, and doesn't, then I would consider them as being in the same boat as the council that initially voted this in. No different.... and just as misguided.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 05:52 PM
  #893
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If the new council gets into power and actually get the opportunity to nix this deal, and doesn't, then I would consider them as being in the same boat as the council that initially voted this in. No different.... and just as misguided.
Whether you feel that the Jamison deal helps or hurts the COG is one thing, but you can't expect any of the incoming knuckleheads to be any higher of a caliber than the last set of clown shoes. It's still just a bunch of part-timers representing tiny districts of an itty bitty municipality. You aren't going to get much better than the gong show we've all watched the last three years.

rt is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:21 PM
  #894
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
If the lease isn't signed by the time the new council gets sworn in, couldn't they overturn it?
They may not have to overturn it. Since there is already a best before date already built in. Once the new council is in place, if they can just instruct the city manager simply not to sign and let it expire.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 07:57 PM
  #895
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
They may not have to overturn it. Since there is already a best before date already built in. Once the new council is in place, if they can just instruct the city manager simply not to sign and let it expire.
There is a 16 day gap between when the new council is sworn in and when the agreement expires. I'm curious if they can formally overturn it when they get in. I am not a lawyer and I don't know exactly how the ordinance is worded so I don't know just how much wiggle room Skeete has to not sign it.

aqib is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:35 PM
  #896
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
The original post was to an article that is basically a scathing report on all public arena and stadium projects. I've completely admitted that Edmonton and Quebec City won't make money off their new projects. That's not the point. Cities can still build them if they really want to.

I'm not even justifying one city over the other. You're trying to basically take Glendale's disastrous predicament and put in on the same level playing field as the theoretical arenas in Quebec and Edmonton and that's compeltely disingenuous. Glendale never should have built the arena in the first place. But cities can still build arenas if that's what their citizens want and they realize that it will cost them money.

Glendale is a unique animal that not only built an ill-advised arena for a wildly unpopular sport that was pretty much destined to lose piles of money, they still seem to think it's a good idea to quadruple down on that investment and hand out welfare checks totalling $300 million to Jamison and an unidentified group of shadowy investors when the city is already broke. That is a completely different level of lunacy that the world has never seen. And you try to argue that pointing this out is "hypocritical" and "the rules must be different up north". Well they are different up north. Quebec City is not going to pay the arena manager $300 million over 20 years to manage the arena. That's the key here. Not the original investment, which was a terrible idea to start with, but the ongoing financial support from a city that simply can't afford to support the wildly unpopular hockey team.
So let me see if I get this..... you start out using a broad-minded article to justify one specific scenario. Then when I point out that the same article could be applied to other scenarios you expand on it.

Exactly what I was hoping for.

Quote:
Oh goody, we're back to blaming Moyes again. The NHL should know what they're doing in managing hockey teams and arenas, especially when they can lean on AEG, who's part of the old boys club. Yet they seem to be losing piles of money each year on the team, even after firing the overpaid coach and paying market rates for travel. How exactly was Moyes supposed to survive for another 20 years in Glendale with a financial sinkhole of a hockey team and arena operation?
I never blamed Moyes. I pointed out the simple facts regarding what Glendale had at the outset in the original lease and where it changed for them. The rest is your own interpretation.

Quote:
Yes, the BK changed all that, it just made it completely obvious to even those who weren't paying attention that hockey wasn't going to work in Glendale. Yet, instead of figuring that out, the COG has spent $50 million and just committed to another $300 million that they'll never see again to keep that sinkhole of a team around for another 20 years. The BK didn't force the COG to start spending $15 million a year (or $25 million for the past 2 years). They could have watched the Coyotes leave, hire someone who knows what they're doing for about $2 million a year, and been far better off and less in debt than they are now.
Sure... Glendale could have done something different. But they felt it was in their best interest to work with the NHL towards finding another owner for the team that could operate it better.

Yes... they have invested $50million into the process (of which only half of that has been verified been spent) so far. They had two completely different deals fall apart for reasons nobody here really knows (but are always willing to speculate about it) and they are now on a third.

Quote:
Someone who knows more about Quebec than me can offer up a comparison of rents between the original Glendale lease and the Quebec City one. But once Quebec offers up a $300 million subsidy to the arena manager, then you can try to compare the absurdity of the two.
Guess you missed the part where I stipulated you can't compare the two..... I only made the comparison in the context of the article you originally brought into this.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:52 PM
  #897
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
There is a 16 day gap between when the new council is sworn in and when the agreement expires. I'm curious if they can formally overturn it when they get in. I am not a lawyer and I don't know exactly how the ordinance is worded so I don't know just how much wiggle room Skeete has to not sign it.
JMO..... but.

Skeete has zero wiggle room at all at the moment.

The ordinance becomes active around 12/27 (30 days after it was approved) unless by some miracle "Back to Sanity" comes up with ~7,000 valid signatures.

If..... Jamison completes his purchase of the franchise by 12/27 and provides proof of ownership to Glendale before a new council is sworn in then Skeete has to sign the AMF/lease.

If..... Jamison can't complete his purchase until after the new council is seated then the new council might pass another ordinance that instructs Skeete not to sign.

After that it gets fuzzy.....

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:19 AM
  #898
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I wonder when Jamison is going to let the COG and fans know the identity of "The Owner" of the team, who will be the third signatory to the tripartite lease agreement. It is almost incomprehensible that the COG has passed an ordinance for a >$300 million deal (that damaged their credit rating) without even knowing who the main beneficiary will be. The identity of the ownership group will have to be made known soon, since the NHL will have to conduct due diligence and approve the ownership. This is a very odd process.
. . . and especially so in light of today's developments.

It's hard to imagine any bona fide investor completing the purchase of an NHL team until litigation between the league and the players is concluded, and a new CBA is reached. Make that "if" a new CBA is reached.

Mork is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:23 AM
  #899
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
JMO..... but.

Skeete has zero wiggle room at all at the moment.

The ordinance becomes active around 12/27 (30 days after it was approved) unless by some miracle "Back to Sanity" comes up with ~7,000 valid signatures.

If..... Jamison completes his purchase of the franchise by 12/27 and provides proof of ownership to Glendale before a new council is sworn in then Skeete has to sign the AMF/lease.

If..... Jamison can't complete his purchase until after the new council is seated then the new council might pass another ordinance that instructs Skeete not to sign.

After that it gets fuzzy.....
That's how I understand it, TL. There is another complicating factor, and that is that the lease is not just between Jamison and the COG. It also needs to be signed by "The Owner". Presumably, the lease can't actually be signed until the new owner completes the purchase of the team, etc. That would require completing the process with the NHL Board of Governors. Given the current state of everything, I can't really see how they will be able to sign the new lease until well into January. It will be interesting to see if the new council has any appetite to re-open this. Somehow, I think they'll leave it and just complain about the actions of the previous council. Meanwhile, Knaack can continue to look over her shoulder for the specter of a recall as the financial situation worsens and the implications play out through staff and service cuts.

Whileee is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 07:29 AM
  #900
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
That's how I understand it, TL. There is another complicating factor, and that is that the lease is not just between Jamison and the COG. It also needs to be signed by "The Owner". Presumably, the lease can't actually be signed until the new owner completes the purchase of the team, etc. That would require completing the process with the NHL Board of Governors. Given the current state of everything, I can't really see how they will be able to sign the new lease until well into January. It will be interesting to see if the new council has any appetite to re-open this. Somehow, I think they'll leave it and just complain about the actions of the previous council. Meanwhile, Knaack can continue to look over her shoulder for the specter of a recall as the financial situation worsens and the implications play out through staff and service cuts.
that's the big elephant in the room (not the white elephant in the desert, that's a different elephant) ... jig actually has to buy the team before anything can happen with the lease ... and we all know that if that hasn't happened by now, it's never going to. so all talk about the lease means nothing because he is not able to buy the team. and all of the bankrupting gymnastics in CoG council chambers has been little more than entertainment for sickos like us.

GuelphStormer 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 10:27 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.