The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Our View: Payment plan would demonstrate NHL’s good faith
Quote:
Scruggs said she learned the city had no access to those funds within the past two weeks but City Attorney Craig Tindall told the council this week the escrow information was provided with the contract papers last year.
Perhaps Mayor Scruggs should've read ALL pertinent documents before voting on them!
A year ago the Mayor was told to "pay up our else" , and as well the Mayor has always said that the team had to stay at all costs.
So vote yes to pay the $25M and worry about the fine print later. Seems like a good way to conduct business.
City Manager Ed Beasley said he took the mayor’s request for a payment plan to the NHL and it is under advisement
A polite way for the NHL to say no.
Again, she knew. Now, one year later, the city could be out $50M and still lose the team. She is trying to CYA herself. She is worrying about her legacy.
Remember (paraphrasing) "I hope I don't get sued but this is how I feel"? I guarantee she rehearsed that line. She is hoping the NHL might blink because of the bad publicity.
As a follow up to my long standing skepticism about the sale of the arena, I took a minute to visit to the Arizona Revised Statutes. The idea that the sale of the arena is included in an imminent deal is even more absurd than I realized.
Quote:
A.R.S. 9-403. Sale of real property valued at more than five hundred thousand dollars; special election; sale at auction
A. Real property of a city or town, the value of which exceeds five hundred thousand dollars, shall not be sold unless first authorized by a special election called for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the city or town the question of selling or not selling the real property proposed for sale. The election shall be held within the corporate limits of the city or town on a date prescribed by section 16-204, and notice shall be given as provided in section 9-402.
B. The ballots shall contain a description of the property proposed for sale and the reason why the governing body desires the property sold. The description and reasons shall be printed in eight-point type and shall contain not more than one hundred words.
C. If a majority of the ballots cast is in favor of selling, then the governing body may sell the property at public auction, after giving the notice required in section 9-402, to the highest bidder for cash, reserving the right to reject any and all bids.
Glendale would have to call a special election and get the voters to approve the sale of the arena.
Note: The city could potentially bypass the election requirement if the Arizona state legislature wrote up a bill, got it passed and signed by the Governor. It seems that a similar bill was passed in the 2009/2010 session allowing the state to complete a sale and leaseback.
Once the special election or legislation exempting the election is passed, the requirements for sale of real property must still be satisfied.
Quote:
A.R.S. 9-402. Sale and disposition of property; advertising for bids; publication; donation; easements
A. A city or town may sell and convey all or any part of its real or personal property, whether or not the property is devoted exclusively to public use.
B. The sale shall not be made until an invitation for bids for the purchase of the property has been published as provided by section 39-204 and notice has been posted in three or more public places within the city or town.
C. If no newspaper is published within the city or town, then the invitation for bids shall be published as provided by section 39-204, and by posting notices for bidders in three or more public places within the city or town.
D. A city or town may donate lost and found or unclaimed personal property in its custody for at least ninety days to nonprofit charitable organizations.
E. Notwithstanding subsections A and B of this section, a city or town may convey to the appropriate property owner without receiving payment an easement that the city or town no longer needs.
As such, I continue to suggest that any report indicating that the arena is included in a sale of the franchise is patently false.
I remember that and hating that. Atleast Coyotes fans semi knew last year's playoff defeat could have been the last without the NHL saying it. I wish this time around the NHL would just come out officially and say it even if most people know.
Funny enough, the Winnipeg Jets had two "farewells" as well.
Many fans thought the team was finished in 95, only to have it come back for one more season.
As a follow up to my long standing skepticism about the sale of the arena, I took a minute to visit to the Arizona Revised Statutes....
As such, I continue to suggest that any report indicating that the arena is included in a sale of the franchise is patently false.
Thanks for digging that up & posting it. Hopefully it'll stamp paid to that fiction, at least here on hf. Even if those rules & regs didnt exist, buying Glendale Arena would be just about the stupidest thing a body could get up to in buying the franchise to go with.
Wasnt it Sunnuks who floated this nonsense or someone else?. No matter. Someones talking through their hat...
With all due respect to Mayor Scruggs, public records and laws dont take much 'digging' to find. The post you see here is the grand culmination of 5 to 6 minutes of mild effort.
As a follow up to my long standing skepticism about the sale of the arena, I took a minute to visit to the Arizona Revised Statutes. The idea that the sale of the arena is included in an imminent deal is even more absurd than I realized.
Glendale would have to call a special election and get the voters to approve the sale of the arena.
Note: The city could potentially bypass the election requirement if the Arizona state legislature wrote up a bill, got it passed and signed by the Governor. It seems that a similar bill was passed in the 2009/2010 session allowing the state to complete a sale and leaseback.
Once the special election or legislation exempting the election is passed, the requirements for sale of real property must still be satisfied.
As such, I continue to suggest that any report indicating that the arena is included in a sale of the franchise is patently false.
This further reinforces my view that Sunnucks has been an unreliable reporter on this story. If he had spent as much time as CF looking into this, or knew a bit more about the business of sports franchises, perhaps he wouldn't have thrown out the unsubstantiated notion that the Coyotes sale would now include the arena, even while the mayor is proclaiming loudly and publicly that she has no inkling that a bona fide buyer is anywhere on the horizon.
With all due respect to Mayor Scruggs, public records and laws dont take much 'digging' to find. The post you see here is the grand culmination of 5 to 6 minutes of mild effort.
Hmmmm... so I wonder what is keeping Sunnucks so busy that he can't engage in even a cursory examination of the issues at hand before throwing out speculations and rumours about the Coyotes' sale. Note that he is a "Senior Reporter" with the Phoenix Business Journal.
With all due respect to Mayor Scruggs, public records and laws dont take much 'digging' to find. The post you see here is the grand culmination of 5 to 6 minutes of mild effort.
Wait, wha.. you mean it wasn't like how the mayor described?
John Shannon has believed for a long time the team will be staying for another year. Based on this discussion, it sounds like he still believes it. Damion Cox and Bob McCown believe QC has the NHL over a barrel and the team is moving. Elliot Friedman is leaning towards DC and BM's point of view but he is not there yet.
Again, goes back to my point about suburban governments being run by a group of clowns.
Part time job or not, if you're already up to your eyeballs in debt, you better know exactly how you are spending a single sum as much as $25 million.
What is the city up to in debt? $1 billion? Pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.
Well they're a city of a quarter million, they've built a football stadium, an arena, a spring training facility for a baseball team, are a suburb that made a lot of money when the housing market was huge but since it's crashed they have lost a lot of property tax revenue that was previously paying for city services and they likely expanded those services on the back of it. Now they don't have enough money to pay the bills if the hockey team stays or leaves, on top of all the bond debt they have to pay. In addition the shopping complex next to the arena which could bring extra tax revenue to the city has gone under.
As a follow up to my long standing skepticism about the sale of the arena, I took a minute to visit to the Arizona Revised Statutes. The idea that the sale of the arena is included in an imminent deal is even more absurd than I realized.
Glendale would have to call a special election and get the voters to approve the sale of the arena.
Note: The city could potentially bypass the election requirement if the Arizona state legislature wrote up a bill, got it passed and signed by the Governor. It seems that a similar bill was passed in the 2009/2010 session allowing the state to complete a sale and leaseback.
Once the special election or legislation exempting the election is passed, the requirements for sale of real property must still be satisfied.
As such, I continue to suggest that any report indicating that the arena is included in a sale of the franchise is patently false.
Not to mention, you think the CoG would have been informed, perhaps, that the potential buyer of the team was about to purchase the city's property.
Of all the potential thread titles for XLVI, I'm leaning towards "under advisement."
If the standings stay as they are today, the Coyotes will be facing the Canucks come next week. Something tells me, relocation will be a constant reminder from everyone at the CBC (who will likely cover the series) and the rest of the Canadian media. Should be fun!
As a follow up to my long standing skepticism about the sale of the arena, I took a minute to visit to the Arizona Revised Statutes. The idea that the sale of the arena is included in an imminent deal is even more absurd than I realized.
Glendale would have to call a special election and get the voters to approve the sale of the arena.
Note: The city could potentially bypass the election requirement if the Arizona state legislature wrote up a bill, got it passed and signed by the Governor. It seems that a similar bill was passed in the 2009/2010 session allowing the state to complete a sale and leaseback.
Once the special election or legislation exempting the election is passed, the requirements for sale of real property must still be satisfied.
As such, I continue to suggest that any report indicating that the arena is included in a sale of the franchise is patently false.
Excellent find!! However, Jan Brewer was able to sell the State Capital buildings without having to go through such as you pointed out so maybe there are some ways around this for the sale of Jobing.com Arena?
Just imagining (and this takes a lot of imagination) that there is someone negotiating with the NHL to buy the Coyotes with the intention of then buying jobing.com, and possibly even Westgate, and more than that vacant land around Westgate as part of the deal . . .
A. Why the heck they would need to have all the trouble with a money-losing hockey team and an arena if it's really shoppining centres and development land that interests them?
B. If price is "not an issue" in connection with the purchase of the hockey team, would it be an "issue" for the purchase of the arena, or the shopping centre or the development land?
