HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ownership Saga:Glendale City Council passes Phoenix Coyotes arena deal (Read post #1)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2013, 10:25 PM
  #1
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 500
Ownership Saga:Glendale City Council passes Phoenix Coyotes arena deal (Read post #1)

Same guidelines are in effect from the last thread:

1) We have a thread to discuss the Coyotes ownership situation. But for very few circumstances, discussion of the ownership situation in other threads is off-topic and will be deleted. It will likely also come with infractions and thread bans.

2) Dissent is allowed and even encouraged. But be civil. You can disagree without being disagreeable. You can attack posts but not posters. Play nice. I know there is a lot of tension, but don't make it worse.

3) If you deem something to be trolling or incendiary or anything like that, don't reduce yourself to that level. Report the offending post and don't respond to it.

4) This is a board for Coyotes fans. If what you've come here to post will just rile people up without adding much or anything to the conversation, your post will likely be deleted and you could find yourself with a threadban or an infraction. If you'd like to discuss this topic through a different lens, try the Business of Hockey board.

mouser is offline  
Old
06-27-2013, 10:34 PM
  #2
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,311
vCash: 1025
Quote:
"@78avik: Join the Hunt! Coyotes, Glendale and RSE!"
From Avik Dey, lesser known member of RSE.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
06-27-2013, 10:38 PM
  #3
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Haha. That was also true of the Jamison deal. Then his financing fell through. Hulsizer's deal looked pretty well wrapped up too. Then the GWI set fire to it. Then there's the old grandpas rolling around with petitions. Will those factors arise again? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody saw them coming then, however. I'm sure there is something nobody sees coming now that will show up and throw a wrench in the gears. It's too contentious. It's too crappy of a deal. There are so many factors that want to kill this thing. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

A YES vote is cause for celebration. NO means certain and immediate death of the market. A YES provides some hope. However, if you think a YES vote on Tuesday means that the team will remain for five more seasons, with no doubts about it, you'll be disappointed when things inevitably continue to drag on and complicate.
That was the point I was attempting to make a month ago when people were acting like this thing is suddenly predictable. It's been ****ing chaos from the start, it's not even remotely a stretch to assume that will continue. I mean maybe this is finally the end but then again would anyone really be that surprised if it's not?! It's the damnedest thing and I will say this, if the Coyotes make it out of this thing and stay here, no fan base in the NHL will feel as much joy from a cup win as the Coyotes fan base would. You can't appreciate sweet until you've had sour and no one has tasted sour on the level of Coyotes fans.

Sinurgy is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 12:15 AM
  #4
IPreferPi
A Nonny Mouse
 
IPreferPi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Mark Curtis interviewed Weiers on 12 News earlier today; he obviously isn't at all pleased by the NHL's and RSE's pressure on Glendale for expedited passage of the deal. Obviously the best exchange was

Quote:
Curtis: Do you feel that the NHL has a gun to your head?
Weiers: More like a bazooka
http://www.azcentral.com/video/2514294653001

I think he's firmly in the "no" column. But, unlike Alvarez, he's being very reasonable and articulate about his position - can't really fault him for it given the financial details and the history of this protracted, sordid affair.

But then again, we really can't anticipate how the Council will behave until Tuesday night. I'm sure Bettman/Daly will be in town and Yotes supporters will be in attendance. Very easy for someone to crack when the chips are down.

IPreferPi is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 12:41 AM
  #5
coyotes
Registered User
 
coyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPreferPi View Post
Mark Curtis interviewed Weiers on 12 News earlier today; he obviously isn't at all pleased by the NHL's and RSE's pressure on Glendale for expedited passage of the deal. Obviously the best exchange was



http://www.azcentral.com/video/2514294653001

I think he's firmly in the "no" column. But, unlike Alvarez, he's being very reasonable and articulate about his position - can't really fault him for it given the financial details and the history of this protracted, sordid affair.

But then again, we really can't anticipate how the Council will behave until Tuesday night. I'm sure Bettman/Daly will be in town and Yotes supporters will be in attendance. Very easy for someone to crack when the chips are down.
I think if the vote ultimately comes down to the Mayor, I don't think he will vote No. While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes. I think the Mayor recognizes it's political suicide to be the person recognized for killing the Coyotes deal.

coyotes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 01:00 AM
  #6
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes View Post
I think if the vote ultimately comes down to the Mayor, I don't think he will vote No. While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes. I think the Mayor recognizes it's political suicide to be the person recognized for killing the Coyotes deal.
I totally agree with this, at the end of the day if the mayor decides, he votes yes. I have watched the video, and he wants time and citizens to see it. I still think this will pass...If he was dead set against it, he would have said, "I am voting no and lobbying everyone else to vote no, no matter what, this is a bad deal".

cobra427 is online now  
Old
06-28-2013, 01:22 AM
  #7
coyotes
Registered User
 
coyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
I totally agree with this, at the end of the day if the mayor decides, he votes yes. I have watched the video, and he wants time and citizens to see it. I still think this will pass...If he was dead set against it, he would have said, "I am voting no and lobbying everyone else to vote no, no matter what, this is a bad deal".
Agreed! He could have said "I support the Coyotes and want to reach a deal. However, I don't support the agreement in it's current form and will vote no. This is why we need more time to come to an agreement that works for both sides" I think he is posturing. Politicians are self preservationists. He is not going to hang his career on this one vote.

coyotes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 01:41 AM
  #8
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebranded Fan View Post
From Avik Dey, lesser known member of RSE.
interesting note from the Arizona Republic... aside from the core 4 investors, who will remain RSE, the group is now known as IceArizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...x-coyotes.html

Brodie is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:12 AM
  #9
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes View Post
While there is a significant number of Glendale residents opposed to the deal, the majority want to retain the Coyotes.
There's no evidence of this. Actually, if the polls on AZcentral were anything to go by, the majority of people in Glendale have concerns about the deal. Everyone likes a free lunch. Too bad there's nothing free about paying the Coyotes $15m a year.

XX is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:25 AM
  #10
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
There's no evidence of this. Actually, if the polls on AZcentral were anything to go by, the majority of people in Glendale have concerns about the deal. Everyone likes a free lunch. Too bad there's nothing free about paying the Coyotes $15m a year.
I wouldn't go by polls on AZcentral for anything.

Sinurgy is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:27 AM
  #11
coyotes
Registered User
 
coyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Kudos to Jones for calling out Giblin and his nauseating anti-Coyotes slant in every one of his articles. I can't believe the Republic allows this clown to write for them. There is absolutely no journalistic integrity to his articles. Even Dan Bickley appears objective compared to Giblin. It seems like with every positive development, Giblin puts a negative spin and tries to make it seem like the harbinger of doom. When this deal finally gets approved, I wonder what Giblin will do then?

coyotes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:15 PM
  #12
IPreferPi
A Nonny Mouse
 
IPreferPi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
From today in the Globe and Mail

Quote:
There is an interesting name in the mix with Gosbee and LeBlanc. Former NHL goaltender Mike Vernon is a Calgary native and a close friend of Gosbee, who is a Calgary financier. Vernon said he is not an investor at this point but is helping out with advice and may take a role in the Coyotes’ hockey and business operations if the arena lease is approved. “We’ll see,” he said.

If IceArizona gets the team, Gosbee and LeBlanc want to recruit more investors among the large group of Albertans who winter in the Phoenix area. Vernon, who is an affable fellow, would be a big help in that regard.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle12883834/

IPreferPi is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:18 PM
  #13
coyotes
Registered User
 
coyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I wouldn't go by polls on AZcentral for anything.
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort. That is 10% of the number of voters in the previous election (69,558). For a city of 230,000 people, it doesn't make sense that they couldn't acquire 7,000 signatures if indeed the majority of Glendale was opposed to a deal. I think we can safely say the majority were not opposed to a deal. XX can say whatever he wants but actions speak louder than words and the people spoke by not signing it.

coyotes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:26 PM
  #14
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 500
I don't know whether the average Glendale Joe favors this deal or not. One thing I would like to ask the CoG council relates to their comments about risk. I would like them to articulate how they do not continue to have risk on the arena if they don't do this deal with RSE. Saying the risk is limited to $6.5M is not really true. They rely upon revenue to service the bonds, and attendance to funnel other sales tax revenue to Westgate. If they are left with an unproductive asset in the form of an arena that limps forward with 20 - 30 events a year, with an average of less than 10,000 people, what does that cost the CoG going forward?

I know Pollack did a study a couple years ago. He concluded that the City was worse off by a couple mill if the Coyotes left. Wonder if the CoG has a response to my risk question....

goyotes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 02:42 PM
  #15
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,722
vCash: 500
If that weren't a concern, they'd have shown the NHL the door months ago.

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is online now  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:10 PM
  #16
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,145
vCash: 500
If anyone wants updates from today's 1:30 pm COG council meeting this guy will be tweeting from the meeting

Quote:
Hello everyone. I'll be live-tweeting today's City Council workshop concerning the #Coyotes at 1:30 PM."]
COG meeting

RR is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:11 PM
  #17
pacdunes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona & San Fran
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes View Post
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort. That is 10% of the number of voters in the previous election (69,558). For a city of 230,000 people, it doesn't make sense that they couldn't acquire 7,000 signatures if indeed the majority of Glendale was opposed to a deal. I think we can safely say the majority were not opposed to a deal. XX can say whatever he wants but actions speak louder than words and the people spoke by not signing it.
now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you?

pacdunes is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:32 PM
  #18
letsgoavs1921
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.

letsgoavs1921 is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:49 PM
  #19
Jakey53
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letsgoavs1921 View Post
The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.
We are talking about the COG. NO BRAINER!

Jakey53 is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:51 PM
  #20
Jakey53
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacdunes View Post
now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you?
They can't.

Jakey53 is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 03:55 PM
  #21
pfp
Registered User
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letsgoavs1921 View Post
The simplest way to look at the situation, and this is how the city council should be looking at it is like this.....

Deal is not great, but it's the best one yet.

They previously approved other deals that weren't as good.

Yes there is risk, and they may not turn a profit

However, what is the alternative? Pay $6-$8 million a year to run an empty arena that also results in Westgate not surviving?

Sounds like a no brainer to me.
I don't believe THIS council approved any previous deals.

pfp is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 04:05 PM
  #22
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,669
vCash: 500
The more I think about it, the more I think this will pass. If you are a town with 230,000 people and you have two major pro sports franchises, how could you let one leave, or be squarely responsible for one leaving. A COG member gets 100% of the blame if they vote no, for the team leaving, and for any business that fails at Westgate and for Westgate itself, should it fail too.

With a yes vote, they are picking the lesser of two evils, and won't get all of the blame, even if it does not work out. The COG was kind of handed a turd from the previous administration. There is not any kicking and screaming from citizens to not do this deal either, none. Bottom line, there is less political risk with a yes vote.

cobra427 is online now  
Old
06-28-2013, 04:11 PM
  #23
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,311
vCash: 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes View Post
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort.
Last summer, they only needed 2,100 signatures and failed (turned in 1,400 three days after the deadline). So 7,000 secures that coffin. Even the well funded anti-tax group only gathered 4K.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 04:32 PM
  #24
letsgoavs1921
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfp View Post
I don't believe THIS council approved any previous deals.
I'm not 100% sure if that is accurate or not but the Mayor honored the Jamison deal and this one is much better.

Still, what is the alternative?

letsgoavs1921 is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 06:04 PM
  #25
Colt45Blast
Tippett's Tool
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 26,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes View Post
And if the majority of Glendale residents were opposed to a deal, how is it that they were unable to acquire the number of signatures to block referendums in the past. They couldn't even get 7,000 signatures in 30 days with a well publicized effort
It's called Election Day 2012, the voters spoke on that day in order to bring in politicans to stop any kind of deal that would keep the team in Glendale. July 2nd will be the day that deterimes if they same people who got voted in will stick to their guns or not. Damn those real facts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pacdunes View Post
now you've done it - bring facts to support your point. How can these others keep pace with you?

Rants are not facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakey53 View Post
We are talking about the COG. NO BRAINER!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakey53 View Post
They can't.

Colt45Blast 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 06:16 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.