HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Balsillie/Phoenix part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2009, 10:15 AM
  #251
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
The upper is the Phoenix Memorandum of Law...but looking at the proxies themselves, the same thing is aparent...

What Moyes did was sign away all the power of the companies (from what I can see, there is nothing saying that Moyes himself gives up anything, but rather that each entity individually gives up everything)...the weird thing is that there are clauses in both the agreement with the NHL and in the operating structure (that is the actual operating structure on page 9) that basically say that if the companies give up power, the power becomes worthless (because all voting rights are revoked) and all decisions go directly to Jerry Moyes

It appears that Moyes forsaw a situation where neither side would be acting in good faith, and decided to screw the NHL before they could do the same to him...
Again, taking it from the top.

The team's own motion documents confirm that he (and his wife) signed personal proxies.

It is starting to get a little difficult to believe that you are not appreciating this point.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:20 AM
  #252
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenator1 View Post
Totally different situation.

Ottawa had average attendance at the time of bankrupcy, and has been top 8 since Melnyk stabilized the team for the long term. Phoenix has been in the bottom 5 every year.
Ottawa has also been one of the top teams in the league for most of those 8 seasons, making the playoffs every year until this year, making the Cup Finals once, and often finishing near the top of the league in points.

Phoenix, on the other hand, hasn't made the playoffs since 2002 and hasn't advanced past the first round since, well, ever.

Winning helps. It sure helped in Ottawa. It would help in Phoenix.

Don't kid yourself. If Ottawa had had as bad a stretch of seasons as Phoenix has had over the last decade, they'd be having some problems too. Not to the same degree as Phoenix, but they wouldn't be filling the arena either.

MayDay is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:23 AM
  #253
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002 View Post
Don't get me wrong - you are asking good questions, and you are articulating the team's arguments. I applaud you for that. It's just that the arguments, in my legal opinion, do not have much merit.

Please understand that, in legal filings, you have to distinguish between the facts that the party is putting forth and their legal argument (their position, in other words). The facts are the documents themselves. The idea that the documents pertain only to voting rights is their argument, or position. The document establishing that Moyes signed a proxy is a fact; the idea that it somehow applies only to his capacity "as manager" is a legal argument. Does that clear things up for you?

It is instructive that the team elected not to include the Moyes proxy in their filings. Rather, they proffer the Coyotes Hockey LLC one and suggest that the others are the same in all material respects. My suspicion (and it is just that) is that it is not included because it does not support your contention.

See, Moyes, as shareholder at the top and as trustee of the trust, and as director/officer of every one of the corporate entities, has multiple opportunities to try the little dime-store technique that you mention. Any lawyer off a street corner would be able to immediately perceive the need to have Moyes sign his proxy in his personal capacity (which covers all capacities and titles that he may have). Keep in mind that, under the law, unless he were to expressly sign it only "as a managing partner" or "member" (which legally means he is not signing in his personal capacity at all), he is signing it in his personal capacity. If he signed it in some wacky capacity that you suggest, the NHL would look at that and immediately understand that it would not be effective to bind him in his personal capacity. Getting him to sign as an individual would be the entire raison d'etre of getting his personal signature. They already would have documents signed on benhalf of the companies/trusts.

I hope this clarifies things. You are asking all good questions, and the right questions, but they really do relate to basic legal stuff. Is it possible that a firm like Skadden Arps misdrafted a proxy or allowed him to sign in some sort of qualified way without reading his signature? I would rate it as a one in a two hundred and twelve million shot.
Based on this, I'd say the meat and potatoes of this case will be decided in a matter of seconds once the other proxies go into evidence...if they specifically say managing partner, as this one does, the NHL is dead in the water (and while you seem to have confidence in the NHL, I have some that noone would be stupid enough to take on the NHL on such a minor detail unless somehow there is actually merit to it), if Moyes signed one personally, the Chapter 11 is dead in the water as he would have acted illegally...

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:25 AM
  #254
bodybreak
We're Back!
 
bodybreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug mckenzie View Post
Competition bureau could get involved: Flaherty

http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/se...rtsHockey/home




RICHARD BLACKWELL

Globe and Mail Update

May 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM EDT

HAMILTON — Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty said the federal competition bureau could have a role to play in the efforts to bring another NHL franchise to Canada, if one of the participants thought the league was behaving improperly.

“We have a competition bureau and we have a competition tribunal in this country and if someone was of the view that the competition laws of Canada were being violated those would be the avenues to follow,'' he told reporters after a speech in Hamilton.
Depending on what happens in court, the Bureau's involvement could hurt Balsillie, thanks to the Anti-Competitive Act, which has rules against “preventing the competitor’s entry into, or eliminating the competitor from, a market.”

The Act also prohibits deals reached with “the purpose of impeding or preventing the competitor’s entry into, or eliminating the competitor from, a market.” If that wasn’t enough, the Act also bans “requiring or inducing a supplier to sell only or primarily to certain customers, or to refrain from selling to a competitor, with the object of preventing a competitor’s entry into, or expansion in, a market.”

With a second group interested in putting an NHL team in Hamilton, and a group from Winnipeg that has been in touch with the NHL for years, Balsillie could end up with one or two MORE legal fights on his hands, should the Bureau get involved in moving the Coyotes north of the border.

bodybreak is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:26 AM
  #255
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002 View Post
Again, taking it from the top.

The team's own motion documents confirm that he (and his wife) signed personal proxies.

It is starting to get a little difficult to believe that you are not appreciating this point.
That's not what I gather from what is here...it looks like they signed a bunch of stuff as the managing partners of the Trust (which owns everything)...of course, it is incredibly ambiguously worded, so it might be best to just wait before we say one side is right or wrong for sure...

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:27 AM
  #256
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
What Moyes did was sign away all the power of the companies (from what I can see, there is nothing saying that Moyes himself gives up anything, but rather that each entity individually gives up everything)...the weird thing is that there are clauses in both the agreement with the NHL and in the operating structure (that is the actual operating structure on page 9) that basically say that if the companies give up power, the power becomes worthless (because all voting rights are revoked) and all decisions go directly to Jerry Moyes

It appears that Moyes forsaw a situation where neither side would be acting in good faith, and decided to screw the NHL before they could do the same to him...
Coyotes Hockey LLC actually owns the team. Moyes hold many hats. He is (1) an officer / "Managing member" of the LLC; (2) its majority shareholder; (3) a creditor due to the loans he made to the company. So if Coyotes Hockey LLC assigned its right to make major decisions over things like bankruptcy filings and sales of the team (the primary asset held by Coyotes Hockey LLC), Moyes in his capacity as officer/Managing member of Coyotes Hockey LLC had no power or authority to file the bankrupcty petition on behalf of the LLC. If he lacked that power, the filing was, in legal terms, an ultra vires act (an act without legal authority) and if the court agrees with the NHL, it will be reversed and teh bankruptcy petetion dismissed.

Your point (following Coyotes Hockey LLC's to the court in its Memoradum of Law), relies on the Hockey Operating Agreement, not the subsequent Proxy Agreement. To make that argument, Moyes has to admit that he signed away rights to the league in Nov. 2008 that he knew he never had under the Hockey Operating Agreement, to get the loan from the NHL. In most places that's called fraud. Since Moyes was the Managing Member of the LLC and wore all the hats, I don't think its going to be interpreted in his favor. (Since Moyes owns 92% of the LLC, the Hockey Operating Agreement is essentially an agreement Moyes has with himself and his wife, defining his authority as the LLC's fiduciary or "Managing member."). In the end, I expect the Court to rule that the Proxy Agreement trumps the Hockey Operating Agreement on this point. Its unlikely the court will allow him to take off one hat and put on the other, pretending he didn't know what was going on while wearing the first hat.

I think Moyes is in deep trouble here due to this stunt. He took a high risk/ high reward gamble with Balsillie (trying to screw the NHL and the Leafs/Sabres out of potentially lucrative expansion fees, for personal gain) and if it fails (as it appears likely to do), Moyes will have completely alienated his biggest ally (prior to May 5) - the NHL and Bettman (not to mention the Leafs as the biggest contributor to the equalization payments). He's going to have to go back to them with his tail between his legs, and I'm sure they are going to be far less sympatheic for his personal plight than before May 5, when they were going out of their way to help him.


Last edited by Jake16: 05-09-2009 at 10:37 AM.
Jake16 is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:30 AM
  #257
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
The funny thing is that even if the NHL loses the right to file bankruptcy motion, the NHL might still be in good position to fight Balsille...if they can somehow get a legitimate offer from Reinsdorf, they could turn around and argue that the bankruptcy hearing is a sham that Moyes is using to make an extra buck, turning his back on a potential suitor who would keep the team in Phoenix, in the hopes that the court will break his lease...a legit offer from Reinsdorf (has to be at least 130 million to be considerable) and the anti-trust part could go out, because the "protecting an NHL market" claim would suddenly have full merit...

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:36 AM
  #258
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
Coyotes Hockey LLC actually owns the team. Moyes hold many hats. He is (1) an officer / "Managing member" of the LLC; (2) its majority shareholder; (3) a creditor due to the loans he made to the company. So if Coyotes Hockey LLC assigned its right to make major decisions over things like bankruptcy filings and sales of the team 9the primary asset held by Coyotes Hockey LLC), Moyes in his capacity as officer of Coyotes Hockey LLc had no power or authority to file the bankrupcty petition. If he lacked that power, the filing was in legal terms an ultra vires act and if the court agrees with the NHL will we reversed.

Your point (following Coyotes Hockey LLC's to the court in its Memoradum of Law), relies on the Hockey Operating Agreement, not the subsequent Proxy Agreement. To make that argument, Moyes has to admit that he signed away rights to the league in Nov. 2008 that he knew he never had under the Hockey Operating Agreement, to get the loan from the NHL. In most places that's called fraud. Since Moyes was the Managing Member of the LLC and wore all the hats, I don't think its going to be interpreted in his favor. The proxy is going to trump the Hockey Operating agreement. Its unlikely the court will allow him to take off one hat and put on the other, pretending he didn't know what was going on while wearing the other hat.

I think Moyes is in deep trouble here due to this stunt. He took a high risk/ high reward gamble with Balsillie (trying to screw the NHL and the Leafs out of potentially lucrative expansion fees) and if it fails (as it appears likely to do), Moyes will have completely alienated his biggest ally (prior to May 5) - the NHL and Bettman (not to mention the Leafs as biggest contributor to the equalization payments). He's going to go back to them with his tail between his legs, and I'm sure they are going to be far less sympatheic for his personnal plight than before May 5, when they were going out of their way to help him.
Actually, my second quote on page 10 was directly from the proxy...(btw Creditor was the word I was looking for and forgot). There is a specific clause in the proxy that said that the Hockey Agreement actually trumps the Proxy. There's no denying that what Moyes did was fraud...no matter which argument is true, this is fraud since the argument I see is based on deceiving the NHL into a loan (though they were positioned as primary secured loan)...the Hockey Agreement seems to allow him to take off the hat, unless as GS mentioned, there is a proxy in which the individual hat was given up as well, in which case, everyone on his side (he and his lawyers) aren't too bright...

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:36 AM
  #259
zenator
Registered User
 
zenator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
Ottawa has also been one of the top teams in the league for most of those 8 seasons, making the playoffs every year until this year, making the Cup Finals once, and often finishing near the top of the league in points.

Phoenix, on the other hand, hasn't made the playoffs since 2002 and hasn't advanced past the first round since, well, ever.

Winning helps. It sure helped in Ottawa. It would help in Phoenix.

Don't kid yourself. If Ottawa had had as bad a stretch of seasons as Phoenix has had over the last decade, they'd be having some problems too. Not to the same degree as Phoenix, but they wouldn't be filling the arena either.

You are somewhat right. Ottawa might drop to around 16th / mid league if they were losing for a sustained period. But that is nowhere near bottom 5 every year.

You also have to look at revenue. Ottawa's ticket prices are in the top 1/3 of the NHL, so they don't have to sell as many seats as Phoenix to generate the same revenue. Phoenix has the lowest prices in the league.

zenator is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:36 AM
  #260
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyo...es0509-CP.html

I couldn't find this in this thread yet, but the Coyotes are suing the league.

GKJ is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:39 AM
  #261
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Interesting article...but again, if there is ANY bid to keep the team in Phoenix, this isn't really anti-trust given that he has personally guaranteed the lease (hence, fraud)

This is a new can of worms...again, if the NHL overlooked this really simple detail (who is in control), this could get really interesting (btw, has any league actually ever won an anti-trust suit?)...but as GS indicated, if there is any kind of personal proxy, you have yet another b-s lawsuit

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:43 AM
  #262
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyo...es0509-CP.html

I couldn't find this in this thread yet, but the Coyotes are suing the league.
I wanted to pull this quote from the Rutgers legal expert"

Quote:
As part of the team's bankruptcy filing, the Coyotes on Thursday sued the NHL and alleged the league has engaged in a "conspiracy" to unlawfully attempt to take control of the franchise and prevent the sale to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie, who wants to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario.
...
Marc Edelman, a Rutgers Law School professor who has specialized in sports anti-trust cases, said it's unprecedented to have a bankruptcy court decide whether a professional sports league has violated anti-trust laws.

"There always has been a conflict of the powers of an individual team and the power of a league. To the extent a court would overrule this, it would open up the door where an owner could sell to the highest bidder irrespective of how other teams in the league feel about it."

 
Old
05-09-2009, 10:49 AM
  #263
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
Interesting article...but again, if there is ANY bid to keep the team in Phoenix, this isn't really anti-trust given that he has personally guaranteed the lease (hence, fraud)
Alleging fraud is a pretty huge leap, so maybe some care should be taken in this thread about saying this is fraud.

If in fact Moyes stands to lose all of his money as the lead debtor and/or faces insolvency, Ch 11 protection allows a legal route to protect oneself from all creditors.

What does the lease agreement say specifically with regard to Ch 11 or Ch 7 filings?

Second question for the legal types: is a penalty clause that has yet to be invoked considered debt in the same manner that existing debt is considered debt in the eyes of the courts?

 
Old
05-09-2009, 10:53 AM
  #264
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyo...es0509-CP.html

I couldn't find this in this thread yet, but the Coyotes are suing the league.
Messy.

Rob is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 10:57 AM
  #265
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
Actually, my second quote on page 10 was directly from the proxy...(btw Creditor was the word I was looking for and forgot). There is a specific clause in the proxy that said that the Hockey Agreement actually trumps the Proxy. There's no denying that what Moyes did was fraud...no matter which argument is true, this is fraud since the argument I see is based on deceiving the NHL into a loan (though they were positioned as primary secured loan)...the Hockey Agreement seems to allow him to take off the hat, unless as GS mentioned, there is a proxy in which the individual hat was given up as well, in which case, everyone on his side (he and his lawyers) aren't too bright...
There is some language on the last page of the proxy stating that all other agreements of the Club remain in force unless modified by the Proxy. But then in the last paragraph of the Proxy (bottom of page 2), Moyes warrants and represents that the "managers" of the LLC (i.e., himself personally) have read, understand and accept the Proxy terms (which states on page one that the company assigned the right to decide to file bankrupcy or to enter into a sale agreement to the Commissioner).

At the end of the day, Moyes/Coyotes Hockey LLC's argument is circular and depends heavily on Moyes establishing that his own represenatation in the Proxy was false, in order to get the loan.

How can Moyes credibly argue that as "managing member" he retained specific rights that the company he "manages" signed away, when that Proxy Agreement contains an express representation by Moyes that all of the LLC's "managers" (i.e., himself) now understand and agree to the powers signed away? His argument is a stretch.

Jake16 is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:03 AM
  #266
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Alleging fraud is a pretty huge leap, so maybe some care should be taken in this thread about saying this is fraud.

If in fact Moyes stands to lose all of his money as the lead debtor and/or faces insolvency, Ch 11 protection allows a legal route to protect oneself from all creditors.

What does the lease agreement say specifically with regard to Ch 11 or Ch 7 filings?

Second question for the legal types: is a penalty clause that has yet to be invoked considered debt in the same manner that existing debt is considered debt in the eyes of the courts?
I can handle a person using bankruptcy to get out of a lease...but that isn't what Moyes is doing...he is attempting to circumvent the lease as far as I can tell...the reason I think it is fraud is because instead of using Chapter 11 to break the lease to find a potential suitor, he has entered Chapter 11 with a deal in place which specifically goes against his personal guarantee...if the judge breaks the lease, he might get away with it, but he has offered to sell a team to someone (without the lease deal) and is hoping the court breaks the lease itself (which would be incredibly stupid given the circumstances)

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:06 AM
  #267
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
There is some language on the last page of the proxy stating that all other agreements of the Club remain in force unless modified by the Proxy. But then in the last paragraph of the Proxy (bottom of page 2), Moyes warrants and represents that the "managers" of the LLC (i.e., himself personally) have read, understand and accept the Proxy terms (which states on page one that the company assigned the right to decide to file bankrupcy or to enter into a sale agreement to the Commissioner).

At the end of the day, Moyes/Coyotes Hockey LLC's argument is circular and depends heavily on Moyes establishing that his own represenatation in the Proxy was false, in order to get the loan.

How can Moyes credibly argue that as "managing member" he retained specific rights that the company he "manages" signed away, when that Proxy Agreement contains an express representation by Moyes that all of the LLC's "managers" (i.e., himself) now understand and agree to the powers signed away? His argument is a stretch.
"This proxy is irrevocable (notwithstanding any provisions of the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coyotes Hockey, LLC"

This is his entire argument in a nutshell...he basically is arguing that he gave the NHL nothing, because if he removes himself as managing partner, he becomes the head as creditor (since it is one of the conditions of the agreement)...again, if there is a personal proxy, his ENTIRE argument is gone and his legal staff are morons...but, if the NHL missed this one detail, he has a case...

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:07 AM
  #268
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Alleging fraud is a pretty huge leap, so maybe some care should be taken in this thread about saying this is fraud.

If in fact Moyes stands to lose all of his money as the lead debtor and/or faces insolvency, Ch 11 protection allows a legal route to protect oneself from all creditors.

What does the lease agreement say specifically with regard to Ch 11 or Ch 7 filings?

Second question for the legal types: is a penalty clause that has yet to be invoked considered debt in the same manner that existing debt is considered debt in the eyes of the courts?
Its a matter of timing. The bankrupcy filing occured at approx. 3;12 pm PST on Tuesday May 5. Obviously the deal to break the arena lease and move the team to Ontario was agreed to by Moyes and Balsilie well before that time. It had to have been - the contract with Balsilie was attached to the bankrupcy filing. If I was the City of Glendale's attorney, I would argue that the breach of the lease agreement, triggering the remedies clauses (the liquidated damage clause) occured before 3:12 pm on May 5, while the team had no bankruptcy protection, and hence the City should be considered a creditor.

Jake16 is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:12 AM
  #269
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
Its a matter of timing. The bankrupcy filing occured at approx. 3;12 pm PST on Tuesday May 5. Obviously the deal to break the arena lease and move the team to Ontario was agreed to by Moyes and Balsilie well before that time. It had to have been - the contract with Balsilie was attached to the bankrupcy filing. If I was the City of Glendale's attorney, I would argue that the breach of the lease agreement, triggering the remedies clauses (the liquidated damage clause) occured before 3:12 pm on May 5, while the team had no bankruptcy protection, and hence the City should be considered a creditor.
The other thing is the hat issue...Jerry Moyes supposedly personally guaranteed the lease, meaning that this is connected to him individually (so the bankruptcy of his companies shouldn't protect him)

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:14 AM
  #270
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
"This proxy is irrevocable (notwithstanding any provisions of the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Coyotes Hockey, LLC"

This is his entire argument in a nutshell...he basically is arguing that he gave the NHL nothing, because if he removes himself as managing partner, he becomes the head as creditor (since it is one of the conditions of the agreement)...again, if there is a personal proxy, his ENTIRE argument is gone and his legal staff are morons...but, if the NHL missed this one detail, he has a case...
Paragraphs 17 and 17a of Coyotes Hockey LLC's Memoradum of Law says that proxies, identical in form, were also executed by Jerry and Vickie Moyes in Nov 2008, in order to get the loans from the NHL

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acr...0044b52807.pdf

Look at page 11 of the LLC's Memorandum (page 11 of 114 on the entire PDF)

Jake16 is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:20 AM
  #271
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjindaho View Post
The other thing is the hat issue...Jerry Moyes supposedly personally guaranteed the lease, meaning that this is connected to him individually (so the bankruptcy of his companies shouldn't protect him)
That we don't have any proof of yet. Many, including myself, speculated that it would have been very poor business practice by the City not to have obtained some sort of personal guaratee given the shaky financial history of the LLC and teh reasonable chance for a future bankruptcy, but the actual lease confirming that has yet to be produced. (Given the bankrupcty ploy to break the lease, I now question whether that was done becuase Moyes would be sticking himself with an even larger debt by doing what he did.)

Ed Beasley, the City Manager, however did state that the lease had some teeth to account bfor the possibility of a bankruptcy by the LLC. We just don't know what it is and what the contractual language looks like.

Jake16 is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:23 AM
  #272
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
This may not have anything to do with the matter since Moyes acquired the majority of the team from Elman (sp), however who entered into the original lease agreement with Glendale, Moyes or Elman?

 
Old
05-09-2009, 11:23 AM
  #273
Bjindaho
Registered User
 
Bjindaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,215
vCash: 500
it says "Jerry Moyes, and Vicky Moyes each granted proxies to the Commissioner of the NHL to exercise their respective "Voting Rights" (described on pages 12-13, below) as members of Hockey, Arena Management, Holdings and MemberCo (collectively "the Proxies")

Again, this says that they gave him useless votes...there is no claim to a personal proxy...but as GS pointed out again, if they signed anything as anything other than Managing Partner or their specific title, they'd still be personally proxying (as well, we haven't seen all the proxies, so the one you argue exists, could very well exist)

Bjindaho is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:32 AM
  #274
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This may not have anything to do with the matter since Moyes acquired the majority of the team from Elman (sp), however who entered into the original lease agreement with Glendale, Moyes or Elman?
Original lease was both Moyes and Ellman together. Reports are at the time that Moyes held a 75% share and Ellman a 25% share of the team.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-09-2009, 11:34 AM
  #275
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyo...es0509-CP.html

I couldn't find this in this thread yet, but the Coyotes are suing the league.
The public statements give the impression that the team is trying to nuke its Phoenix bridges making an alternative offer for it (to keep it there) even less likely.

There's no positive outcome to this situation now.

Crazy_Ike 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 01:31 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.