HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2013, 09:19 PM
  #101
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit3119 View Post
the COG is not exactly handling this like professionals.
I'd encourage you to read Morgan's quotes from the Mayor

https://twitter.com/cmorganfoxaz

The council is unified in their backing of the counter proposal. If the Coyotes are to stay, RSE must share in some of the risk. This is a reasonable request. It is not 'unprofessional' of the city to ask as much. We're already talking about a city that flushed $50m down the toilet to drag this saga on two more years. I'm honestly not sure how you can fault them for finally saying enough is enough.

If the Coyotes leave, it will have nothing to do with the city and everything to do with the league's price. The same price that forces loans and clownish groups upon us as potential owners.

XX is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 09:26 PM
  #102
RemoAZ
Stugots
 
RemoAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Glendale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Why the RSE Agreement Isn't Dead Just Yet
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/6...-dead-just-yet

Some light reading...

RemoAZ is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 09:26 PM
  #103
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
City is comfy with the team potentially leaving.
That's the right stance. Call their bluff and dictate some sort of risk sharing. The current proposal makes no sense for the city. Putting together something that does, voting on it and pushing RSE back against the wall is the right move IMO. Enough of this ********.

zz is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 09:36 PM
  #104
Desert Ice 11
Release 20140726 :|
 
Desert Ice 11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,800
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
I'd encourage you to read Morgan's quotes from the Mayor

https://twitter.com/cmorganfoxaz

The council is unified in their backing of the counter proposal. If the Coyotes are to stay, RSE must share in some of the risk. This is a reasonable request. It is not 'unprofessional' of the city to ask as much. We're already talking about a city that flushed $50m down the toilet to drag this saga on two more years. I'm honestly not sure how you can fault them for finally saying enough is enough.

If the Coyotes leave, it will have nothing to do with the city and everything to do with the league's price. The same price that forces loans and clownish groups upon us as potential owners.
I think after doing some reading I have to agree. Just thinking about 8.5 million from group of millionaires is not that much to burden. Is it? Am I getting confused about some thing?

I know its to late for this but why couldn't RSE keep all the revenue and say we give you 8.5 million...I am guessing the only answer is because they don't have the money to do it so they need Glendale's money to buy the team.

So, let me get this straight...RSE gets money from Glendale, Revenue sharing from the NHL, a loan from the NHL... to keep the team running and pay back a giant loan from Fortress. Also get a chance to leave after 5 years if RSE has accumulated 50 million in losses to either sell or relocate the team.

Glendale gets the possibility of revenue from events in the arena. Gives 15 million to RSE. Still pays for what it owes on the arena. Gives the NHL 5 million a year for 5 years.

Did I miss something?

I read this article and got some of the numbers I used. Not paying back the NHL though..I did't fact check those but if any readers want to I do not care.http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n....html?page=all

Desert Ice 11 is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 10:14 PM
  #105
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YotesFan11 View Post

I know its to late for this but why couldn't RSE keep all the revenue and say we give you 8.5 million...I am guessing the only answer is because they don't have the money to do it so they need Glendale's money to buy the team.
Close. They need to secure a loan, which itself carries interest, from a hedge fund called Fortress. This particular loan is secured in part by an equity swap that would give Fortress up to 20% ownership of the team as a form of collateral. The loan, for $120m, takes a lot of money just to 'make the monthly payments.' So, yes, RSE does not have the money. They also don't have the credit to secure this Fortress loan, so they need X amount (where X is what is required to service the debt) per year from Glendale (who is credit worthy).

There is also the dubious origin of the revenue RSE is conjuring up. Paid parking, naming rights that have yet be sold etc... It's all a lot of wishful thinking, none of which RSE is prepared to stand behind in the form of a guarantee. Glendale wants RSE to pay up if their projections fall short. A reasonable request. But it transfers the risk back to RSE, who are unwilling to bare that risk and generally want a free lunch.

In the hypothetical scenario where the team moves in 5 years, under RSE's proposal, they lose nothing. If they can sell for something north of $245 million, they might actually make money. The NHL will be made whole ($80m) and Fortress (the remaining balance of the loan or 20% of the sale price, whichever is greater) and RSE will get back their $45m in equity. The problem here is that Glendale, at that point, has given RSE $75m and received an indeterminate amount of money back. They get nothing out of their investment beyond those 5 years of tax revenue + parking/ticket charges. Team moves? You're SOL, while all three other parties got what the wanted.

RSE is not interested in the long term viability of the Coyotes. They are all about minimizing risks and their costs in the first five years. That tells you all you need to know about this deal.

XX is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 10:19 PM
  #106
Govment Cheese
Registered User
 
Govment Cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ment062813.pdf

this is the line that jumps out at me. Talk about the city assuming all the risk. No wonder the COG counter offered.

Quote:
RSE’s proposal includes a provision that in the event of a catastrophic casualty that RSE would be entitled to proceeds of the city’s insurance. Similarly, in the event of a condemnation of the property, RSE’s proposal includes a provision that RSE receives the proceeds of that condemnation.
RSE: sorry your arena burned down
COG: Ya it is, but we have insurance to cover the loss of the building
RSE: Ya about that we get to keep the money from the insurance claim
COG: What?
RSE: That's right part of the AMF you signed, which reminds me you still have to pay the AMF even though we are only managing a smoking pile of rubble.

Govment Cheese is offline  
Old
06-28-2013, 10:23 PM
  #107
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govment Cheese View Post

this is the line that jumps out at me. Talk about the city assuming all the risk. No wonder the COG counter offered.
It would be funny to see what is basically legal insurance fraud on a grand scale if it wasn't disturbingly possible. Come to think of it, it's pretty odd that a rag tag group of Canadian investors descended upon the valley looking for a great deal. Maybe the plan was to burn it down all along? None of these guys have '2 legit to quit' levels of money, so I've never seen them as saviors. Others are welcome to see them that way, but the terms of the deal spell out pretty clearly that they are here for the blue plate special.

XX is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:58 AM
  #108
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
The only thing that might happen is (RSE) may come back and say 'you know what, we were kidding. We really didn’t mean what we said' and I sort of expect that’s exactly what they’re going to say. 'We weren’t really serious about we’re leaving.
What a stupid and unnecessary comment.

Sinurgy is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 01:14 AM
  #109
OOEEL
Registered User
 
OOEEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
One thing that could make this really weird/awkward:

Prospect development camp is the 9th to the 11th. If they rule no on the 2nd and the NHL takes action that same day to relocate us are they going to still have it down here or are they going to quickly find a rink in Seattle to hold it?

It doesn't help that STHs got an email for an exclusive meet and greet with some of the top kids one of the days. I can only imagine those conversations "Hey, so, good luck in Seattle, it's a shame I'll never be able to see you play live."


OOEEL is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 01:16 AM
  #110
ck26
Alcoholab User
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,815
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoAZ View Post
Why the RSE Agreement Isn't Dead Just Yet
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/6...-dead-just-yet

Some light reading...
Why is CoG's out clause a major sticking point? Does RSE think they're going to find a way to make their investment wildly profitable only to them? $6m subsidy from CoG + 20% - revenue streams that don't materialize and we're still short of $50m. The only way they can be planning to lose that much money is if they have a nefarious goal for the franchise. So odd ...

ck26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 01:18 AM
  #111
ck26
Alcoholab User
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,815
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by OOEEL View Post
One thing that could make this really weird/awkward:

Prospect development camp is the 9th to the 11th. If they rule no on the 2nd and the NHL takes action that same day to relocate us are they going to still have it down here or are they going to quickly find a rink in Seattle to hold it?

It doesn't help that STHs got an email for an exclusive meet and greet with some of the top kids one of the days. I can only imagine those conversations "Hey, so, good luck in Seattle, it's a shame I'll never be able to see you play live."

What an ffffing gong show that would be. I'd be even more motivated to go.

ck26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 01:25 AM
  #112
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ck26 View Post
What an ffffing gong show that would be. I'd be even more motivated to go.
The Ice Den has likely already been paid for. They'll just hold it in the valley and keep it closed off from the public. I'm sure those kids will just be happy to be playing for NHL jobs and getting coached. The big pieces of the organization are going to carry over if there is a move, so it's not a huge transition. Seattle is not exactly a crummy city.

XX is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 01:49 AM
  #113
ck26
Alcoholab User
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,815
vCash: 133
I meant the public part. Closing the event would solve that.

ck26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 02:17 AM
  #114
wildcat48
HFB Partner
 
wildcat48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Portland, ME
Country: United States
Posts: 3,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebranded Fan View Post
They are already going to pay $6.5 million. So of the $9 million extra that Glendale would pay, even if their revenue projections are half of what RSE is projecting, the most that would be lost is $30 million. This excludes sales tax and only the $6.7 million projection stated today. (Assumed 9-3×5). Sounds like the parking percent increase being requested is on non hockey events.
Just $30M??? That’s all?

Most of new deal points in my opinion are fluff… It’s really the 5 year out clause for Glendale that’s the most intriguing because if Glendale ever reached the where they’d opt out, based on the budget formula, the team would likely already be bankrupt.

So why is it a big deal you ask?

Because RSE needs the 15 years of guaranteed revenue to secure the loan with Fortress and if Glendale has that 5 year out it puts a level of risk on Fortress that they are apparently not willing to accept.

The math looks really different when you have a $120M dollar loan and you are attempting to secure it with guaranteed revenue of 5 years @ $15M ($75M) vs. 15 years @ $15M ($225M). That’s not even taking into account the 9% interest rate being charged on the loan and assuming it will have a 15 year schedule vs. a 5 year schedule as was reported in Forbes.

That’s the hurdle they need to overcome….

Another point that nobody has mentioned is how will Moody’s and S&P react to these developments because the general fund, without denial, in a precarious position hence why we’re all playing this game now.

Based on the today’s presentation, and with a little background, Glendale put a plan in place to rebuild the GF to have a contingency of 10% percent after 5 years. Under the current budget with $6.5M budgeted for the Arena Management, Glendale would have a 12% contingency after Year 5. However, under the budget that includes RSE the city’s GF drops down to only having a contingency fund of 3% percent in Year 3 and max of 6% percent in Year 4.







I’d have to imagine that neither Moody’s or S&P will look fondly at this especially after Glendale had written financial policies into its budget to prevent such acts from taking place.

The saga continues….
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FY14 non rse.jpg‎ (179.0 KB, 149 views)
File Type: jpg FY14 with RSE.jpg‎ (173.5 KB, 148 views)

wildcat48 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 02:48 AM
  #115
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 500
I don't understand the CoG out-clause but I haven't read it.

Is their out-clause 'we can opt out of this agreement after 5 years if we've lost $50 million'?

And if so, are they counting the first 6.5 million in AMF that they'd conceivably pay without an NHL team towards that $50 million?

If they are not counting the first $6.5 million a year, they'll never get to $50 million in 5 years even if they only get $500,000 in annual rent and no additional streams, because $15 million minus 6.5 million minus $500,000 rent would be $8 million loss a year times 5 years would be $40 million. On the other hand, if they are counting the whole $15 million as a loss, then to not lose $50 million in five years, the city would need to get revenue streams over those 5 years that are on average $5,000,001 a year. Figure $500,000 of that as rent from the team, and they'd have to get $4,500,001 a year in parking and surcharges et cetera to not "lose" $50 million in 5 years.

So I'm wondering if it was spelled out in the counter-proposal just what the city is looking at in terms of being able to opt out.

And if they decide to give SMG $6.5 million a year to manage the Arena, does SMG give them any revenue back? Do they get $3 or $5 per ticket sold? Do they get a share of parking fees for those 100 events? Does the city get say $2 million or $3 million or $6.5 million back from SMG if they award the AMF to SMG?

I don't know how RSE can count on a 15 year AMF when THEY have an opt out clause to opt out in 5 years. How can Fortress consider the $15 x 15 guaranteed when RSE can walk away after 5 years? I am no high finance guy, but wouldn't Fortress figure that out? I mean, to really analyze their risk - what are the odds RSE would NOT lose $50 million in 5 years but Glendale WOULD? Isn't it more likely if Glendale loses $50 million plus in 5 years RSE does too? And if RSE loses $50 million in 5 years... why would they not opt out?

Maybe after a night's sleep it'll be crystal clear to me but right now to me it's as clear as a Calistoga mud bath.

yotesreign is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 04:40 AM
  #116
ck26
Alcoholab User
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,815
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat48 View Post
Because RSE needs the 15 years of guaranteed revenue to secure the loan with Fortress and if Glendale has that 5 year out it puts a level of risk on Fortress that they are apparently not willing to accept.
I see what you're saying, but it makes no sense for Fortress.

I understand that they may simply have no interest in owning an NHL team. Valid.

But this loan isn't to help RSE purchase Shane Doan's NHL playing career, which is an asset that will probably have 0 value in 5 years. They're essentially "purchasing" an NHL team, and that's worth well over $100,000,000.

Same logic explains why mortgages tend to have lower rates than car loans; even if the bank doesn't want to be on the hook for either, your 2013 Ford Mustang will have lost significant value when it gets repossessed in 2016, while a foreclosed home will retain much of ITS value. Less risk to the home loaner.

Don't understand Fortress' position here.


Last edited by ck26: 06-29-2013 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Phone auto-correct often edits things that aren't wrong ...
ck26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 08:30 AM
  #117
Jakey53
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
What a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Isn't that the truth.

Jakey53 is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 09:43 AM
  #118
TickleMeYandle
Not so fast,
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Jamaica
Posts: 1,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OOEEL View Post

It doesn't help that STHs got an email for an exclusive meet and greet with some of the top kids one of the days. I can only imagine those conversations "Hey, so, good luck in Seattle, it's a shame I'll never be able to see you play live."

I got that e-mail and couldn't help laughing when I read it. Sure, I guess the show must go on and the team has to do things to keep going no matter where they play...but in this event, it felt more of a slap in the face than a thank you to loyal STH.

I too will not be spending money in Glendale after the team leaves. It's not so much a matter of principal, but the fact that there will be no reason whatsoever to do so - it will be the city that I pass through to get from home (Surprise) to work (Phoenix). And if some city is going to get my tax dollars, I'd just as soon have it be Surprise.

TickleMeYandle is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 11:16 AM
  #119
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
I don't know how RSE can count on a 15 year AMF when THEY have an opt out clause to opt out in 5 years. How can Fortress consider the $15 x 15 guaranteed when RSE can walk away after 5 years? I am no high finance guy, but wouldn't Fortress figure that out? I mean, to really analyze their risk - what are the odds RSE would NOT lose $50 million in 5 years but Glendale WOULD? Isn't it more likely if Glendale loses $50 million plus in 5 years RSE does too? And if RSE loses $50 million in 5 years... why would they not opt out?
The logic here is that their deal with Fortress secures their loan and guarantees that they'd be made whole out of any sale proceeds. To allow Glendale to opt out, they'd have to go back to Fortress and renegotiate the terms of their loan.

Brodie is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:16 PM
  #120
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly on Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers' characterization of July 2 as an artificial or forced deadline: "He can characterize it the way he wants, but it is what it is. We either get certainty in Glendale by July 2, or we immediately pursue our other options outside of Glendale. We have already gone past the date we were comfortable accommodating in the first place. I hope for the sake of the Coyotes fans in Glendale that they don't lose the team because of a miscalculation made by members of the City Council."
Daly posturing and insisting the league isn't bluffing. This doesn't really change anything, as the Mayor (and the council) admitted they were comfortable with the team leaving if their rather equitable demands weren't met by RSE.

XX is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:22 PM
  #121
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
If they are not counting the first $6.5 million a year, they'll never get to $50 million in 5 years even if they only get $500,000 in annual rent and no additional streams, because $15 million minus 6.5 million minus $500,000 rent would be $8 million loss a year times 5 years would be $40 million. On the other hand, if they are counting the whole $15 million as a loss, then to not lose $50 million in five years, the city would need to get revenue streams over those 5 years that are on average $5,000,001 a year. Figure $500,000 of that as rent from the team, and they'd have to get $4,500,001 a year in parking and surcharges et cetera to not "lose" $50 million in 5 years.

So I'm wondering if it was spelled out in the counter-proposal just what the city is looking at in terms of being able to opt out.
The $50M loss counts everything they pay, i.e. at least $15M:

Quote:
Originally Posted by COG counterproposal section 3.4
Early Termination by the City: Notwithstanding the other terms and provisions of this Agreement, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without penalty or cost by delivery of written notice to Team Owner and Arena Manager jointly at any time within 180 days following the end of the fifth (5th) hockey season year after the execution date if (a) the City is not in material default of any term or condition of this agreement, and (b) the City has incurred a cumulative loss of $50,000,000 or more, calculated as the sum of all City Arena-Related expenditures (including, but not limited to management fee payments) minus all revenues received from City Revenue Sources under this Agreement.
The agreement doesn't define "City Arena-Related expenditures" so it's unclear whether it includes the $500k/yr in capital expenditures, or even arena debt service.

The agreement does define "City Revenue Sources": it includes all ticket surcharges and the city's cut from parking revenues, but not sales taxes on those tickets. It doesn't seem to include the base rent of $500k either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
And if they decide to give SMG $6.5 million a year to manage the Arena, does SMG give them any revenue back? Do they get $3 or $5 per ticket sold? Do they get a share of parking fees for those 100 events? Does the city get say $2 million or $3 million or $6.5 million back from SMG if they award the AMF to SMG?
Who knows. Yesterday, Hugh hinted that yes, the city would get back most of those revenue streams. This info will eventually come out.. keyword is eventually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
I don't know how RSE can count on a 15 year AMF when THEY have an opt out clause to opt out in 5 years. How can Fortress consider the $15 x 15 guaranteed when RSE can walk away after 5 years? I am no high finance guy, but wouldn't Fortress figure that out? I mean, to really analyze their risk - what are the odds RSE would NOT lose $50 million in 5 years but Glendale WOULD? Isn't it more likely if Glendale loses $50 million plus in 5 years RSE does too? And if RSE loses $50 million in 5 years... why would they not opt out?
Brodie answered why Fortress accepted the RSE out clause, but you're right that it's unlikely (but not impossible) the city loses $50M if RSE doesn't.

barneyg is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:29 PM
  #122
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
I'll re-iterate: by putting the ball in their court with a reasonable deal to either sign or reject, the city is doing the right thing here. Expose RSE as what they really are: opportunistic pretenders with no money and no appetite for risk.

zz is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:47 PM
  #123
IPreferPi
A Nonny Mouse
 
IPreferPi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,584
vCash: 500
Totally missed out on yesterday's developments as I was holed up in a movie theater the entire afternoon, but after catching up on all of it, I will say that even if I really, really want the Yotes to stay in Glendale, COG's counteroffer was a ballsy move and is more than fair given the legitimate concerns with RSE. Kudos to the Council for being assertive.

Definitely can see the plug being pulled by the NHL on Tuesday and the Yotes being shipped to Seattle, and I'll no longer have any incentive to visit Westgate at all. But given all the twists and turns this saga has gone through, I'm sure we'll see one or two more before Tuesday's vote.

IPreferPi is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:49 PM
  #124
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 500
MOD EDIT:
Possible scenario -
#1
Monday, RSE says 'we can't accept this counter'.
Tuesday, Glendale passes their proposal 4-3.
Tuesday afternoon, the commissioner says something along the lines of "We're grateful the city of Glendale has provided a proposal that will hopefully work for them and the Coyotes. But we need RSE to accept that proposal in the next 24 hours or we're going to look at relocating the franchise for the 2013-2014 season. We just cannot wait any longer than that.
Tuesday night, RSE says again, 'we can't accept their proposal'.
Wednesday, at noon eastern, the commish announces the team is moving to Seattle for next season, despite everyone's hard work and best efforts, how unfortunate and regrettable and blah blah de blah blah...

Another scenario -
#2
Glendale passes their proposal 4-3
RSE says 'Fortress doesn't love it, but they'll deal with it, thanks, we accept, hooray'


Right now I'm not thinking #2 is too likely.


Last edited by RR: 06-29-2013 at 02:08 PM. Reason: qdp
yotesreign is offline  
Old
06-29-2013, 12:53 PM
  #125
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
RSE is not going to give the COG a 5 year out as it is a deal breaker. The other red line legal changes are likely mostly acceptable. I still think this will go to a vote Tuesday, and pass. Good for the COG to try and negotiate the best deal possible, but, at the end of the day, they will not want to take responsibility and the political fallout, for the team leaving, an empty arena, and Westgate failing. This is all last minute posturing, normal before a deal goes through.

cobra427 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 07:59 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.