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 LXV: The word is... give me a minute.... "Omnishambles"... "Omnishambles"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 05:15 PM
  #26
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Or maybe.... just maybe...... Skeete wants wants to keep his job after the new year and is telling the incoming council what he thinks they want to hear.

On a serious note tho.... I believe Skeete made that "non-recommendation" based upon the fact the sales tax increase sunsets in five years, and he can't assure the council where city finances will be then.

Cannot blame someone for not getting behind a long term obligation when your resources are unknown after a relatively short term.
I wouldn't discount that theory easily, TL.

Whatever his motivation, Skeete has really put the two incumbent "pro" council members out on a limb. Clark and Frate will ride off into the sunset, so it will be Martinez and Knaack who will take the brunt of criticism for this decision going forward, particularly now that they will have to vote against the advice of their city manager. I thought the vote was a slam dunk before, but I expect that Martinez and Knaack are now thinking long and hard about whether they want to be on the hot seat for this going forward. I can imagine that they will feel much more comfortable if they are joined in their support by the new council members.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 06:32 AM
  #27
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Or maybe.... just maybe...... Skeete wants wants to keep his job after the new year and is telling the incoming council what he thinks they want to hear.

On a serious note tho.... I believe Skeete made that "non-recommendation" based upon the fact the sales tax increase sunsets in five years, and he can't assure the council where city finances will be then.

Cannot blame someone for not getting behind a long term obligation when your resources are unknown after a relatively short term.
Huh? The projections he provided to council clearly indicate he does not believe they can afford it while the sales tax is in place.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:53 AM
  #28
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Or maybe.... just maybe...... Skeete wants wants to keep his job after the new year and is telling the incoming council what he thinks they want to hear.

On a serious note tho.... I believe Skeete made that "non-recommendation" based upon the fact the sales tax increase sunsets in five years, and he can't assure the council where city finances will be then.

Cannot blame someone for not getting behind a long term obligation when your resources are unknown after a relatively short term.
Oh come on, now you're reaching. You know as well as the rest of us that if Skeete actually believed it was a good deal he would say so.

The he didn't say "I don't recommend we proceed with this deal based on the tax initiative lapsing in 5 years" that has very little to do with it and moreso to do with he has run the numbers and the City can't afford it. "He said he doesn't recommend the deal" in it's entirety.

Again, I know you are hopeful and probably praying that the team stays but they are on borrowed time now.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:50 AM
  #29
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Oh come on, now you're reaching. You know as well as the rest of us that if Skeete actually believed it was a good deal he would say so.

The he didn't say "I don't recommend we proceed with this deal based on the tax initiative lapsing in 5 years" that has very little to do with it and moreso to do with he has run the numbers and the City can't afford it. "He said he doesn't recommend the deal" in it's entirety.

Again, I know you are hopeful and probably praying that the team stays but they are on borrowed time now.
Skeete's decision to present a lease agreement to council that he does not support raises some very interesting questions relating to the negotiating process. One would think that if he was not able to negotiate a lease agreement that he thinks the COG can live with, he would report back to city council on the failure to come to a suitable agreement with Jamison. Instead, he has prepared a lease agreement and submitted it, even though he would not advise council to accept it.

Now it makes me wonder about the reports that Jamison met with the four supportive city council members. At first, I thought that concerns raised about that meeting in relation to the "open meeting" law were petty. However, Skeete's opposition to this lease changes things if one considers the following possible scenario.

Skeete informs Jamison that he cannot agree with the final offer on the lease. Clark and co. find out that the lease negotiations have hit a standstill, and decide to meet privately with Jamison. Jamison welcomes the opportunity to do so, because it allows him to communicate directly with the city council members and gauge their level of support. He meets with them and finds out that they will support his lease if he threatens to walk away, and therefore sees no reason to negotiate further with Skeete - he already has the votes he needs in the bag.

The point is that by meeting with Jamison privately, the four council members might well have telegraphed their intentions to vote for the lease as it stood, thereby giving Jamison vital information that advantaged him in his negotiations with Skeete. Skeete would have no further leverage, other than to provide a recommendation to city council not to support the lease.

There are good reasons for "open meetings" laws. In this case, if a private businessman receives sufficient assurances from a majority of council members about their position on a crucial vote, it greatly strengthens his resolve in negotiations with the city.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:10 AM
  #30
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,713
vCash: 1989
^ Good point Whileee, they have a name for people like Clark and her three cronies: DIRTY politician.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:11 AM
  #31
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,249
vCash: 500
If Clark and friends can get into hot water for meeting with Jamison separately from the rest of the council, why would she openly and blatantly admit that she and the other "pro-Coyotes" councilmembers met with Jamison? Is she really that stupid? Or just doesn't care? Or just trying to ram through the deal at all costs?

Or does she have an Arena Management Fee Management agreement deal set up with Jamison that gives her $100,000 a year for managing the management fee?

CGG is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:23 AM
  #32
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Skeete's decision to present a lease agreement to council that he does not support raises some very interesting questions relating to the negotiating process. One would think that if he was not able to negotiate a lease agreement that he thinks the COG can live with, he would report back to city council on the failure to come to a suitable agreement with Jamison. Instead, he has prepared a lease agreement and submitted it, even though he would not advise council to accept it.

Now it makes me wonder about the reports that Jamison met with the four supportive city council members. At first, I thought that concerns raised about that meeting in relation to the "open meeting" law were petty. However, Skeete's opposition to this lease changes things if one considers the following possible scenario.

Skeete informs Jamison that he cannot agree with the final offer on the lease. Clark and co. find out that the lease negotiations have hit a standstill, and decide to meet privately with Jamison. Jamison welcomes the opportunity to do so, because it allows him to communicate directly with the city council members and gauge their level of support. He meets with them and finds out that they will support his lease if he threatens to walk away, and therefore sees no reason to negotiate further with Skeete - he already has the votes he needs in the bag.

The point is that by meeting with Jamison privately, the four council members might well have telegraphed their intentions to vote for the lease as it stood, thereby giving Jamison vital information that advantaged him in his negotiations with Skeete. Skeete would have no further leverage, other than to provide a recommendation to city council not to support the lease.

There are good reasons for "open meetings" laws. In this case, if a private businessman receives sufficient assurances from a majority of council members about their position on a crucial vote, it greatly strengthens his resolve in negotiations with the city.

Plausible but pretty devious. Beasley very likely left council out of the loop many times and the COG may now be doing the same to Skeete.

Knaack could still prove to be the swing vote as she faces possible recall.

Still don't know how GJ thinks he'll get thru unscathed knowing full well the new council would tell him to hit the road.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:29 AM
  #33
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
There are good reasons for "open meetings" laws.
... there was quite a stink raised in Hamilton last year when three Councillors, members of the Cities NHL Proposal Committee met with the GM of the Edmonton Oilers over a casual breakfast apparently and failed to report it, much less divulge what was discussed. Ontario has an Ombudsman who handles complaints, overseeing the legislation to "Open Meeting Laws", receiving apparently close to 130 complaints in 2011. That probably represent less than 10% of the actual breaches of the legislation, just instances where elected officials were spotted or "seen" in public cavorting with developers or whatever.... or say at the Sheraton on King West in the Hammer; bellying up to the all you can eat Brunch Buffet in the Starlight Room. Kevin Lowe & Daryl Katz in town and in tow on their Oilers Relocation Tour. Arrived by way of Quebec City; next stop, Markham, followed by Seattle.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:35 AM
  #34
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
If Clark and friends can get into hot water for meeting with Jamison separately from the rest of the council, why would she openly and blatantly admit that she and the other "pro-Coyotes" councilmembers met with Jamison? Is she really that stupid? Or just doesn't care? Or just trying to ram through the deal at all costs?

Or does she have an Arena Management Fee Management agreement deal set up with Jamison that gives her $100,000 a year for managing the management fee?
I'm not sure what Clark might have been thinking, but I haven't been impressed by the intellectual capacity of any of the council members.

In any case, for reference, below is some information about Arizona's open meeting law:

http://www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/Open%...0Law%20101.pdf
Quote:

Why do we have an Open Meeting Law?

1. To protect the public.
a. To avoid decision-making in secret.
b. To promote accountability by encouraging public officials to act responsively and
responsibly.
2. To protect public officials.
a. To avoid being excluded (notice).
b. To prepare and avoid being blind sided (agenda).
c. To accurately memorialize what happened (minutes).
3. Maintain Integrity of government.
4. Better informed citizenry.
5. Build trust between government and citizenry.

What constitutes a meeting?

A meeting is a gathering, in person or through technological devices of a quorum of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including deliberations. A.R.S. 38-431(4). This includes telephone and e-mail communications.
The purpose of the open meeting law is clear and reasonable.

If four council members met with Jamison in private, I believe that would constitute a quorum. If they discussed the lease agreement, and particularly if they indicated their own dispositions with regard to the upcoming voting to Jamison, that would certainly constitute a meeting covered under the open meeting law.

If that meeting affected Skeete's position in negotiating further compromises from Jamison, that is exactly what an open meeting law is meant to avoid.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:38 AM
  #35
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
Plausible but pretty devious. Beasley very likely left council out of the loop many times and the COG may now be doing the same to Skeete.

Knaack could still prove to be the swing vote as she faces possible recall.

Still don't know how GJ thinks he'll get thru unscathed knowing full well the new council would tell him to hit the road.
Beasley and Skeete are not required by law to disclose all of the details of their meetings to the public, or to city council. However, if a quorum of city council plans to meet and discuss potential dealings and future plans, they are required to disclose that to the public and other council members. So leaving people "out of the loop" in such discussions is not an option for a group of council members.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:40 AM
  #36
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckster19 View Post
What I mean here is, the Coyotes vote is needed to maintain the lockout since they need 8 votes, this is why it's dragging on despite (inspite of ?) the absurdity.
That means you think Greg Jamison and his investors would vote differently than Gary Bettman. I don't think it makes any sense given what we know about the Coyotes' financial situation.

barneyg is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:55 AM
  #37
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I'm not sure what Clark might have been thinking, but I haven't been impressed by the intellectual capacity of any of the council members.
... certainly appears to be a pretty cut & dry breach if Clark's to be believed, and I cant imagine why she'd just make it up if it didnt happen and ya; if she (or the others involved) didnt file a report, someone taking minutes or whatever, off the record & off the cuff discussing city business in secret, well, it doesnt get much worse. And then to openly admit to it? I mean, what can you say? I dont know. Maybe the Open Meeting Laws' arent taken all that seriously nor enforced to any degree in Arizona. No idea, and Id imagine without someone filing an actual complaint, complete with dates, times & locations, not much anyone's going to do about it.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:10 PM
  #38
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,954
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I'm not sure what Clark might have been thinking, but I haven't been impressed by the intellectual capacity of any of the council members.
She isn't anymore. It is more than obvious to anyone following this that Clark has made the choice to go all in.

It's all ego at this point and no matter the facts, she is going to vote to sign the lease. Remember, the Mayor at one time was also in Clark's camp, but decided after seeing more information as to the disaster her city faces, she changed her mind. In the last meeting she basically slapped Clark down, by saying that a good Mayor when given new facts should be allowed to change their minds.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:15 PM
  #39
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,954
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... certainly appears to be a pretty cut & dry breach if Clark's to be believed, and I cant imagine why she'd just make it up if it didnt happen and ya; if she (or the others involved) didnt file a report, someone taking minutes or whatever, off the record & off the cuff discussing city business in secret, well, it doesnt get much worse. And then to openly admit to it? I mean, what can you say? I dont know. Maybe the Open Meeting Laws' arent taken all that seriously nor enforced to any degree in Arizona. No idea, and Id imagine without someone filing an actual complaint, complete with dates, times & locations, not much anyone's going to do about it.
Interesting. On Nov 13 someone asked her via twitter:

Jonathan Court ‏@gollybass
Do none of the cm's converse about this stuff?!

Joyce Clark ‏@clarkjv
@gollybass No. They do not. It would violate open meeting law.


Maybe when Jamison and those 4 council members met, they didn't ever talk about the NHL and the lease. I honestly highly doubt that, so Clark is basically IMO knows she is in violation of the open meeting law, but doesn't care.


Last edited by cbcwpg: 11-22-2012 at 12:21 PM.
cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:38 PM
  #40
ducks2010
I buy milk in bags
 
ducks2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
Its an EMERGENCY again! If it worked once, why not try it again?

Agenda is out for next Tuesday.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...das/112712.pdf

Here we go again.

Quote:
This is a request for City Council to vote upon an ordinance with an emergency clause, authorizing and directing the City Manager to enter into an Arena Lease and Management Agreement with Arizona Hockey Arena Partners, LLC and Arizona Hockey Partners, LLC for the use of the city owned Jobing.com Arena by the Phoenix Coyotes.
Quote:
Now, therefore, it is hereby determined by the Council of the City of Glendale that the immediate operation of the provisions of this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety of the City of Glendale, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, adoption, and approval by the Mayor and Council of the City of Glendale.


Last edited by ducks2010: 11-22-2012 at 12:45 PM.
ducks2010 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:39 PM
  #41
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Interesting. On Nov 13 someone asked her via twitter:

Jonathan Court ‏@gollybass
Do none of the cm's converse about this stuff?!

Joyce Clark ‏@clarkjv
@gollybass No. They do not. It would violate open meeting law.
... yes, that is curious, as clearly she's more than cognizant of Open Meeting Laws & Requirements. I would imagine that when Council Members & or the Mayor along with City Officials who do discuss city business with outside interests in private would then be required to file reports. Maybe the 4 of them, including Clark actually did just that, however, the paperwork is still in the system, not ready for release or whatever? Otherwise, if no report was filed, as per the above communication you posted, seems to me it spells trouble with a capital 'T' for all four of them no? Yet, without a complaint to Arizonas' Ombudsman, goes nowhere anyway I suppose.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 12:55 PM
  #42
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks2010 View Post
Its an EMERGENCY again! If it worked once, why not try it again?

Agenda is out for next Tuesday.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...das/112712.pdf

Here we go again.
I thought the "emergency" part of the last lease they voted on 6 months ago was basically overturned, laughed at and removed from any and all aspects of the ordinance. Why are they trying this again? I mean I know why, so they can somehow attempt to bypass a referendum, but this is absolutely ridiculous. What part of the city's "public peace, health and safety" is at risk a deal to pay some guy $308 million isn't passed in an emergency?

CGG is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:14 PM
  #43
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I thought the "emergency" part of the last lease they voted on 6 months ago was basically overturned, laughed at and removed from any and all aspects of the ordinance. Why are they trying this again? I mean I know why, so they can somehow attempt to bypass a referendum, but this is absolutely ridiculous. What part of the city's "public peace, health and safety" is at risk a deal to pay some guy $308 million isn't passed in an emergency?
Where's the urgency! The guy has yet to buy the team.

The urgency is those lunatics are losing their seats in a few weeks. That's the only urgency I see. The urgency to dig a deeper hole in the city's finance.

This is truly the gift that keeps on giving!

I hope this story never gets settled....

GF is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:18 PM
  #44
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I thought the "emergency" part of the last lease they voted on 6 months ago was basically overturned, laughed at and removed from any and all aspects of the ordinance. Why are they trying this again? I mean I know why, so they can somehow attempt to bypass a referendum, but this is absolutely ridiculous. What part of the city's "public peace, health and safety" is at risk a deal to pay some guy $308 million isn't passed in an emergency?
There's an emergency to put the lease into effect so that they can justify firing all of the staff before Christmas.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:25 PM
  #45
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks2010 View Post
Its an EMERGENCY again! If it worked once, why not try it again?

Agenda is out for next Tuesday.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...das/112712.pdf

Here we go again.
Obviously, they see the many ways in which the deal could be overturned if they are not able to pass this as an emergency ordinance.

But this is bizarre. As I understand the city charter, an Emergency Ordinance can only be enacted if it is supported by five-sevenths of city council. Without Lieberman, city council only has 6 members, and two are definite "nays" (Scruggs and Alvarez). Therefore, the best the resolution can expect to receive is 4/6 ayes, which would fall short of the required votes to enact the emergency ordinance.

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13944

Quote:
Sec. 7. - Emergency measures; effective date.

An emergency measure is one passed by the affirmative vote of five-sevenths of the members of the council for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, in which the emergency is set forth and defined. An emergency measure shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #46
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
They're going to they Emergency Ord AGAIN???

Wow, Clark's just going down guns a blazing isn't she if she's trying this again. I'm at a loss for words.

She must really really REALLY believe in what she's doing here.....

Forgive me, but I still think something else is pushing her on this-not necessarily payola and not necessarily any sort of fraudulent thing, but there's something going on here that she's personally connected to IMO.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #47
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
I am now wondering whether this is all a sham.

Skeete and all council members must know that this will not pass as an Emergency Ordinance. Therefore, everybody gets to vote how they want, but the ordinance won't pass without the support of five-sevenths of council members.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:32 PM
  #48
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I am now wondering whether this is all a sham.

Skeete and all council members must know that this will not pass as an Emergency Ordinance. Therefore, everybody gets to vote how they want, but the ordinance won't pass without the support of five-sevenths of council members.
So, why do it is the question.....what benefit?

EDIT: Yea, I'm seeing now this is a way to try and "ram through" the deal, but again, they can't do it as said with 5/7: so, what-they vote anyway, and Clark (and whoever else) can say "I tried! I really tried! It's not my fault!"

That's the impression I'm getting.

EDIT: I posted that while you were posting, so technically Whilee you beat me to it


Last edited by Tinalera: 11-22-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Tinalera is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:38 PM
  #49
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
So, why do it is the question.....what benefit?
One can only speculate when something this weird happens.

Perhaps Clark wants to register a positive vote before she rides off into the sunset, if only for the sake of posterity.

One issue that I am not sure about is whether the ordinance passes as a "non-Emergency" if it receives a majority vote, but not the five-sevenths. In that case, the lease can pass but it won't be as an emergency, which will permit review and perhaps revocation by citizens and maybe even the new mayor and council.

Whileee is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:40 PM
  #50
objectiveposter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
i think someone posted earlier that if a council member does not vote (lieberman) it automatically gets counted as a yes vote for the emergency clause aspect... so they would have 5 of the 7 votes..... although I could be wrong on that.

objectiveposter 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 09:31 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.