Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)

[roccerfeller]

^ Yeah thats what I am wondering about...how that plays into this, because the way that article sound its exactly how JR's lease agreement is with the COG....


so does this mean he will have to go back to the drawing board (potentially)? Or do things look better for IE..

[dfab1367]

Originally Posted by GSC2k2

No, the bondholders assume the risk, not the citizens of Glendale (as you yourself noted in your penultimate sentence). They are not the same thing. You seemed to understand that in your post, but your last sentence seems to be a nonsequitur.

Having some financial experience, here is my take on bond offerings. Typically when bonds are sold by any level of government, they are backed by the same, in this case, the municipality of CoG. So whenever repayment of the bonds occurs, it will be the CoG on the hook, no question. The monies raised from these bonds will fund the losses of the Coyotes, so it will have to be repaid at some point. If it doesn`t come from the Coyotes, it will come from the municipality as they are the issuers.

Does that make sense? Opinions?

[Alberta Yote]

New thread coming right up.

How many more new threads before there is an owner?

[roccerfeller]

probably 14 or 15 more.

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by CoyotesVisitor

There's definitely some chance that won't be enough to cover the coupons on the bonds, in which case I guess the city will need to make up the difference.

Not necessarily. They are revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds. If the backing revenues fall short, the bondholders are SOL - the city is not obligated to make up the difference.

This is similar to the Glendale MPC 2003 A & B bonds used to build the arena. They are backed by a defined set of arena and other revenues. If those are insufficient, CoG has no other obligations.

[LadyStanley]

And closing.


Next thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=761372