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.
Phoenix LXV: The word is... give me a minute.... "Omnishambles"... "Omnishambles"
Right, as if things weren't interesting enough, the audit and financial report-assuming they get released to public, just adds icing to this cake....
The financial report will be made public for sure. SEC requirement. Each FY ends June 30 and the report is generally released in mid Dec. (I think it was Dec 12, 2011 for FY11).
Interesting to see the external auditor's accompanying letter...
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.
Twas me. And to repeat, this is what I found from the City Charter ( not sure if this also pertains to emergency votes ):
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.
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.
So the questions / interpetations of the rules are:
So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early ( within the next 7 days ) with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote, or is it just a non-vote?
Or/ And.. 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, or again, is it a non-vote?
I would guess this has never happened before ( where a council member decides they have had enough and sails off into the sunset before their term is done ) in the city history, or there would be something in the charter to cover it.
Twas me. And to repeat, this is what I found from the City Charter ( not sure if this also pertains to emergency votes ):
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.
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.
So the questions / interpetations of the rules are:
So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early ( within the next 7 days ) with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote, or is it just a non-vote?
Or/ And.. 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, or again, is it a non-vote?
I would guess this has never happened before ( where a council member decides they have had enough and sails off into the sunset before their term is done ) in the city history, or there would be something in the charter to cover it.
At the very least, this thing is going to give Tindall something to do.
I would be very surprised if they counted Cactus Phil's seat for a vote. He is no longer a city council member. But one can never know what could happen here.
I can't imagine that they would vote to fill the vacant seat, since an election has occurred and a new council member will be sworn in in December.
But this is Glendale, so the usual traditions of civic functioning were suspended long ago.
Quick note, for what it's worth. At the November 13, 2012 city council meeting there were a few motions that were not carried unanimously. In the minutes, Lieberman's vote was not recorded (so the vote included only the 6 sitting council members).
1) If one of the 7 seats is vacated, maybe all it then takes is 4 of 6?
2) If one of the 7 seats is vacated, the 7th seat is automatically "aye"?
What else could it possibly be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg
Twas me. And to repeat, this is what I found from the City Charter ( not sure if this also pertains to emergency votes ):
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.
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.
So the questions / interpetations of the rules are:
So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early ( within the next 7 days ) with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote, or is it just a non-vote?
Or/ And.. 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, or again, is it a non-vote?
I would guess this has never happened before ( where a council member decides they have had enough and sails off into the sunset before their term is done ) in the city history, or there would be something in the charter to cover it.
I do not think it would be a failure to vote as the seat is vacant. This is not a failure of a member to vote as Phil is not a member.
They could fill his seat but that might be a huge risk to those still holding a seat ala recall. Also, they would be asked why it took so long for them to fill the seat as well.
At the very least, this thing is going to give Tindall something to do.
I would be very surprised if they counted Cactus Phil's seat for a vote. He is no longer a city council member. But one can never know what could happen here.
I can't imagine that they would vote to fill the vacant seat, since an election has occurred and a new council member will be sworn in in December.
But this is Glendale, so the usual traditions of civic functioning were suspended long ago.
Quick note, for what it's worth. At the November 13, 2012 city council meeting there were a few motions that were not carried unanimously. In the minutes, Lieberman's vote was not recorded (so the vote included only the 6 sitting council members).
Sounds like that's the way they are going to go, until a vote happens where the result isn't what someone wanted and decides to sue the city because the rules on Phil-gone aren't clear.
I do not think it would be a failure to vote as the seat is vacant. This is not a failure of a member to vote as Phil is not a member.
They could fill his seat but that might be a huge risk to those still holding a seat ala recall. Also, they would be asked why it took so long for them to fill the seat as well.
Seriously, I think that there is no chance that they'll fill the vacant seat with a ringer for the vote. I can't see Knaack and Martinez being unprincipled enough to push through an emergency vote before the new council is seated on the premise that the new council members don't understand the issue, and then bring in a new member to vote on the deal. It just won't happen.
But I would love to see them try it. I think that they should drag in some friend of Clark and vote him/her onto city council, vote to approve the $320 million deal as an Emergency ordinance just before the new mayor and council take their seats, and then ride off into the sunset and let everyone left behind deal with the fall-out.
My vote for the fake council member would be none other than Ed Beasley, followed closely by TL Hocking (thereby earning some of his generous retainer fee).
Sounds like that's the way they are going to go, until a vote happens where the result isn't what someone wanted and decides to sue the city because the rules on Phil-gone aren't clear.
So, why are they introducing this as an Emergency measure? It seems doomed to failure. Weird.
Upon further reading, there are two seperate arena resolutions on the agenda...one is an emergency action, the other is not.
Methinks someone inside the council (Skeete, Scruggs?) may be laying the groundwork for (another) lawsuit here.
The ordinance authorizing and directing the city manager to enter into an lease agreement with Jamison has an emergency clause, which would require the 5/7ths majority.
As noted in previous threads, even if the ordinance is passed (as it was for the previous Jamison lease), it won't be in effect until signed by all three parties: 1) COG, 2) Arena Manager, 3) Team Owner. That can't happen until the Coyotes are sold, which would take at least 1-1.5 months according to Jamison (about 6-9 months in "Jamison years"). During that time, the new council will be in place and presumably could pass another resolution to strike down the ordinance, I think.
I really don't know what the purpose of the "emergency" clause is, other than to try to avoid a successful petition to put this to a referendum.
Just scanned through the comments regarding the emergency clause.
Has it not occurred to anyone the council can strike the clause out before taking a final vote????
BTW...... as to my previous comments regarding Skeete motivations. I did place a wink smiley at the outset. I'm quite surprised so many of you took it seriously..... but it was entertaining.
Twas me. And to repeat, this is what I found from the City Charter ( not sure if this also pertains to emergency votes ):
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.
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.
So the questions / interpetations of the rules are:
So do they fill Phil's vacant seat early ( within the next 7 days ) with someone who might vote NO, or do they leave the seat vacant so they eliminate one potential NO vote, or is it just a non-vote?
Or/ And.. 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, or again, is it a non-vote?
I would guess this has never happened before ( where a council member decides they have had enough and sails off into the sunset before their term is done ) in the city history, or there would be something in the charter to cover it.
The subject of filling Phil Lieberman's seat prior to the new council being sworn in came up in the workshop and I believe (in following the AZR's reporter on Twitter) that the council's position was no direction (3-3 vote).
We had this discussion before about the failure to vote being aye. That only happens when the member is present at the vote and does not cast a vote, THAT would be where that clause comes into effect. It does not apply to members who are not in attendance at a meeting.
From my recollection a tie in Glendale means fail, so TheLegend's post about filling Phil's spot means it will not be filled and they need 5 of the six votes to have it be an emergency.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend
Gentlemen.... and ladies.....
Just scanned through the comments regarding the emergency clause.
Has it not occurred to anyone the council can strike the clause out before taking a final vote????
BTW...... as to my previous comments regarding Skeete motivations. I did place a wink smiley at the outset. I'm quite surprised so many of you took it seriously..... but it was entertaining.
Yes, I had wondered about that in a previous post, TL.
They will almost certainly have to do that. The emergency clause should add spice to the discussions at the council meeting, which is welcome.
Clearly there is some concern about leaving room for a petition to compel a referendum, and perhaps allowing the new council to overturn the ordinance.
I hope that Jamison and the NHL still find the time and wisdom to realize that their best bet is to negotiate terms with the new mayor and council and give Glendale a break on the lease that is substantial enough to have it pass through the political and legal gauntlet. They are being much too greedy.
I've seen this movie before. It was May, and council was attempting to ram through a lease agreement with JIG because it was an EMERGENCY!!! that was threatening the very well being, health and safety of Glendale. In fact I'm shocked the city hasn't crumbled in the 6 months since, as JIG hasn't yet signed a lease. Even though it was an EMERGENCY six months ago. If you'll remember from May, one of the "Nay" council members was in the hospital at the time.
I think the Big 4 Coyotes council members tried the exact same play - it's an EMERGENCY!, and since one of the council memebers wasn't in attendance (in this case in the hospital) her vote would automatically be counted as "Yes" and they have 5 out of 7 votes to enact the emergency clause. Dirty, sleazy, and taking advantage of a medical situation, but what the heck, if it ends up in a signed lease with JIG and no referendum, then go nuts, right Joyce?
Could this be their plan again? Go with 4 out of 6 votes and try to count Phil's as an automatic "Yes" to get to 5 votes? Seems like a dumb idea to me, it didn't work back then, they just got laughed at and the EMERGENCY part of that ordinance had to be overturned. What makes anyone think they'll get away with it this time, especially when you add in far more citizen outrage, an upcoming audit detailing financial improprieties, a lame duck council and a city manager who doesn't even approve of the deal?
The ordinance authorizing and directing the city manager to enter into an lease agreement with Jamison has an emergency clause, which would require the 5/7ths majority.
As noted in previous threads, even if the ordinance is passed (as it was for the previous Jamison lease), it won't be in effect until signed by all three parties: 1) COG, 2) Arena Manager, 3) Team Owner. That can't happen until the Coyotes are sold, which would take at least 1-1.5 months according to Jamison (about 6-9 months in "Jamison years"). During that time, the new council will be in place and presumably could pass another resolution to strike down the ordinance, I think.
I really don't know what the purpose of the "emergency" clause is, other than to try to avoid a successful petition to put this to a referendum.
Read the next ordinance...it's pretty much the same without the emergency clause.
Read the next ordinance...it's pretty much the same without the emergency clause.
There is one ordinance (with an emergency clause) and one resolution (without the clause). An ordinance is required for the lease of city property in this case.
Perhaps they can amend the ordinance to remove the emergency clause and vote on it, as TL recommended. Without doing that, I can't see it passing.
Perhaps they can amend the ordinance to remove the emergency clause and vote on it, as TL recommended. Without doing that, I can't see it passing.
.... As TL & Sherlock suggest, once you eliminate the impossible, no matter how improbable, then it must be the truth. By invoking the Emergency Clause in advance of the vote they've effectively shuttered the windows & barred the doors in advance of the 27th's vote, then when seated, strike it down, cast their ballots, the 4 of 6 approving the Lease. This thing's got Tindall's signature all over it, and though Skeete may genuinely oppose the agreement, his protestations have been luke warm bordering on ambivalence, behaving more like a waiter simply serving at the feast of his political masters & superiors, catering to their gluttonous indulgences'.
... This thing's got Tindall's signature all over it, and though Skeete may genuinely oppose the agreement, his protestations have been luke warm bordering on ambivalence, behaving more like a waiter simply serving at the feast of his political masters & superiors, catering to their gluttonous indulgences'.
.... As TL & Sherlock suggest, once you eliminate the impossible, no matter how improbable, then it must be the truth. By invoking the Emergency Clause in advance of the vote they've effectively shuttered the windows & barred the doors in advance of the 27th's vote, then when seated, strike it down, cast their ballots, the 4 of 6 approving the Lease. This thing's got Tindall's signature all over it, and though Skeete may genuinely oppose the agreement, his protestations have been luke warm bordering on ambivalence, behaving more like a waiter simply serving at the feast of his political masters & superiors, catering to their gluttonous indulgences'.
I completely agree; this looks like Tindall's MO.
Skeete is walking a fine line, obviously a bit rattled at the prospect of facing a civil service to deliver large cuts while the COG bails out Jamison and the local NHL franchise. I think that he is also almost certainly casting an eye to a permanent position as City Manager. There aren't very many comparable positions, and I wonder whether his work and that of Beasley would read very well on a resume for a job application in another municipality.
Since nothing much is happening right now, I decided to go in my Delorean Time Machine and went back to see what we were saying about the Coyotes at this time of year in the past.....
(for the best effect loop this video in the background)
-Bob1321 on 11-16-2011, 11:22 AM:
''PHX Radio guy is back
rocandmanuch Roc from Roc&Manuch
#PhoenixCoyotes: Jamison group "Our group in tact and in good shape and Greg will meet with NHL at Pebble". Deal will get done there.''
-knorthern knight on 11-21-2011, 07:21 PM:
''Two factors support the idea that the NHL won't be running the Coyotes next year...
-The NHL reported losing $16 million last season IN EXCESS OF GLENDALE'S $25 MILLION PAYMENT. Who knows how much they'll lose this season. The BOG won't stand for any more.
-The next season's schedule starts getting drawn up in January. If you move a franchise during the spring, your options are limited. That's why Winnipeg is playing in the Southeast this season.
With the NHL working on re-alignment, they don't want to do it all over again next year. A 4-division realignment with 8 teams in the WEST, 7 in the CENTRAL, and 7 in the NORTHEAST, is bulletproof against the Coyotes moving to any of Seattle/Portland/Houston/KC/Quebec. The Phoenix crisis might be the last straw that forces reluctant governors on the BOG to accept a 4-division setup.''
-(An awesome guy by the name of) Acesolid on 11-22-2011, 09:20 PM:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley
Nothing's been said publicly for a while.
But the NHL BOG meets the first week of December, so some decision may be made there (realignment notwithstanding, but that could be incorporated as well).
That's the really weird thing. In the last few years there were clear groups trying to buy the Coyotes (like Ice Edge or Hulsizer) that also had meetings with the city and said things with the media.
But this year, it's dead silence, with a "soft deadline" that earlier was December 1, but now (according to what was said earlier this week on TSN) appears to now be January.
All the way back in August the sale was supposed to be a sure thing with a new group, and then Reinsdorf came back, and then......nothing at all.....
In the meantime, the Blues and the Stars are changing hands with no problem, and still the parade of "maybe, maybe not" owners that never amount to anything continues for the 5th year in Pheonix. Sure, there are talks of offers, but nothing that nearly seems as serious or that is as widely discussed as in the last 2 years.
The NHL has to pull the plug at some point!
-Killion on 11-23-2011, 02:52 PM:
Then theres this as well. ^^^. The NHL simply cant carry this on or off any longer. Unless they've got someone on the line that no one knows about somewhere someplace, the teams destined for QC and a few years of play in the old Colisee'. So much for Gary Bettmans comments that "Atlanta was a one-off".
-Killion on 11-09-2010, 05:53 PM:
Their simply has to be a "hard date" dont you think?. Frankly, I'm a total loss as to understand why this is taking so long at this juncture, and its' certainly easy to fall into a black hole of cynical speculation as things quite simply are not adding up. If anyone has ever watched any of the major leagues leave their cities for greener pastures, you'll appreciate the nuances of whats happening in Glendale, the NHL's posturing, the stony silence from the politico's.
-Whileee on 11-09-2010, 06:02 PM:
At some point there will surely have to be a "hard date", but I am not sure that any of the principals even know what that date actually is. Probably the NHL has a date in the back of their mind, but I suppose that could be changed if need be.
I do agree that there is a ton of heavy lifting required if this is to work out. The CFD is the crucial element here, as you have pointed out. It is no trivial task and surely one of the "many moving parts" that Bettman has alluded to that need to be dealt with to finalize something.
-RR on 11-09-2010, 06:15 PM:
The "hard date" is between today and the last possible day the Coyotes can be moved for the 2011-12 season.
-RR on 11-26-2009, 05:00 PM:
And I feel confident that the NHL would rather move this team than sell it to a questionable local owner and subject fans and the league to an even bigger fiasco than this already is.
Skeete is walking a fine line, obviously a bit rattled at the prospect of facing a civil service to deliver large cuts while the COG bails out Jamison and the local NHL franchise. I think that he is also almost certainly casting an eye to a permanent position as City Manager.
I completely agree as well. Yet, would it not serve in his best interest to begin firmly placating to the incoming vs. the current council rather than dancing on the edge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee
There aren't very many comparable positions, and I wonder whether his work and that of Beasley would read very well on a resume for a job application in another municipality.
Coincides with what I stated above. His "Safe Harbor" is where he's at now. Any machinations of a position of equal caliber elsewhere will be tainted, as the dark cloud that is Glendale (not the city or the residents, the circumstances) will be ominipresent. At least to anyone who cares to do their due diligence I mean.
