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.

Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-04-2010, 06:09 PM
  #101
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi1 View Post
^^ Because its not a hockey market and the citizens will go away next year when the team does not do as well. So paying for an arena with an AHL team is better than paying Reinsdorf when the team fails.

Boarding Jobbing.com up makes more sense than this deal.......but having said that, the COG can do a much better job of filling that place with events OTHER than hockey.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that a guarantee. An AHL team that draws well? Yes, I'd probably agree with that. The difference between drawing 8000 a game and 11000 a game isn't too large.

However only 2 AHL teams out of 29 averaged over 8000 attendance and an additional 2 averaged between 7000-8000 (Link). If the AHL team draws below 3000 a game like the Lowell Devils did this past year, that's a huge drop off from the 11000 the Coyotes were drawing and I would have to believe do little to stem the losses from managing the Jobing.com arena.

htpwn is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 06:32 PM
  #102
smokes
Registered User
 
smokes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
So many questions being raised regarding this deal, with some posters seeing many holes, and others suggesting that the holes have already been filled/researched/agreed upon with those parties needed to make it go. I can certainly see how a deal (admittedly creative/multi-faceted and questionable (to some)) that has made it to this point must have the road ahead mostly or entirely paved, otherwise, what is the point?

On the other side of the coin, IEH spent an awful lot of time and money on their proposal only to have it rejected at the last minute. I cannot assume, therefore, that JR is any different in that for all his time, effort, money, legal research, connections, etc. that he has this worked out to the point where it could only be accepted/passed on all levels.

Is it possible that a man as wise as JR would dip so deeply into the pool with a distinct possibility that his bid would fail? IEH didn't see failure coming (at least for much of the time). Would JR be surprised if, for whatever reason, his bid wasn't successful? Would the rejection of his proposal (if it happened) be an indictment of the quality of the deal itself?

smokes is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 06:43 PM
  #103
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The problem this use of the CFD is likely to run into is not a challenge regarding what powers the CFD has, but rather, how the funds raised by those powers are expended. The CFD is not going to be able to simply sit back and say “Well, we have the power to sell these bonds, and what we do with the funds generated by the sale is our business.” The CFD is going to face some very difficult challenges to it's definitions and plan: The CFD also requires a General Plan. I don't doubt that Glendale can put the CFD into place and bond against parking revenues. The problems are going to start when they attempt to use the bond proceeds to pay the NHL $65MM instead of using the funds to improve the "public infrastructure" within the "geographical limits of the district". The challenge to this use of a CFD is pretty much assured to withstand any motion from Glendale for summary judgment and thus will result in the type of lengthy court process that the NHL seemingly would want to avoid. It's certainly going to be great fun to watch Glendale try to navigate the troubled waters. Personally, I don't think they stand a chance of getting away with misusing a CFD in this fashion. And that's just for the $65MM securitized by the parking revenue. We haven't even opened Pandora's $100MM-Line-of-Credit Box yet.
Bingo!. This is exactly where I have a problem with the "liberal" interpretations' of the CFD (and no kidding, never mind the $100M LOC alligator in the bathtub). Again though, how could council for the COG/JR begin to contemplate such a proposal unless they felt they had a bullet-proof case to get this thing done, and done no later than June?. Real head scratcher.

Killion is online now  
Old
05-04-2010, 06:49 PM
  #104
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Bingo!. This is exactly where I have a problem with the "liberal" interpretations' of the CFD (and no kidding, never mind the $100M LOC alligator in the bathtub). Again though, how could council for the COG/JR begin to contemplate such a proposal unless they felt they had a bullet-proof case to get this thing done, and done no later than June?. Real head scratcher.
Exactly why I'm done guessing.

RR is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 07:20 PM
  #105
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Exactly why I'm done guessing.
I hear ya RR. Its' baffling...

Killion is online now  
Old
05-04-2010, 09:18 PM
  #106
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Again though, how could council for the COG/JR begin to contemplate such a proposal unless they felt they had a bullet-proof case to get this thing done, and done no later than June?. Real head scratcher.
Perhaps "how could they" is not the right question. Perhaps the correct question is: "what choice did they have"

- Glendale did not have dozens of interested parties beating down the door to assume the AMULA.

- The two groups that did show interest both required a new, heavily subsidized agreement.

- Goldwater makes it impossible to just hand the team public money in what previously would have been conventional sports subsidy methods.

- The AZ Leg Rep from Glendale proposed a more standard tax district to pay the team. It was dead in about 24 hours, never getting out of Committee

- According to Glendale officials, the NHL gave the city a deadline to complete a deal or lose the team.

So they cooked up this CFD plan and threw it out there. What else were they going to do? If you're down 2 goals with 1:30 left in the 3rd, you pull the goalie. Is that a bullet-proof case to get the game into overtime? No, but what else are you going to do? Pull everybody off the ice and concede?

Reinsdorf gets $200k for his efforts if they cannot get it set up. His team probably did little more than just tell Glendale what they would put into the deal. So JR has no reason not to go along for the ride.

Glendale is going to look awfully dumb for investing $180MM+ into a hockey arena in the desert if they lose the hockey team in less than 10 years. So there is no reason for them not to go to the wall.

I would suggest that no one really believes they have anything remotely similar to a "bullet proof case" for this CFD plan. But, really, what else were they going to do?

CasualFan is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 09:59 PM
  #107
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
the fact that ice edge was shot down in a ball of flames over one line in the proposal is proof to me that they have not been negotiating long and hard with glendale for months...if simple wording like that wasnt even ironed out i really doubt that they are very far down the road with the highly complex details of the final agreement.

the councillors themselves were talking like they had only seen the proposals a few days before....it was obvious that they were not intimately familiar with its contents....and since it is them who need to do all the work (or at least their departments) it would seem that they were starting pretty close to square one after that vote.....they are at least a long way from simply dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

and to suggest that all the negotiation is done by their staff, so thats why they were not knowledgeable about it seems unlikely for a issue of this magnitude in a small city like glendale.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 10:44 PM
  #108
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Perhaps "how could they" is not the right question. Perhaps the correct question is: "what choice did they have" So they cooked up this CFD plan and threw it out there. I would suggest that no one really believes they have anything remotely similar to a "bullet proof case" for this CFD plan. But, really, what else were they going to do?
Accepted Balsillies' $50M handshake with a final year playing in Phoenix, during which time an increase in event bookings & alternate anchors could have been scouted & secured for Glendale Arena?. Now they get to wear their hair shirts & rightfully so. Any number of posters here-in, I know, take umbrage with this view. You know, it really isnt a far fetched "Conspiracy Theory" to arrive at the very same conclusion you end your post with, a feeling I've had about this situation pretty much since last July. Its' a sickening situation on a number of levels. Phoenix deserves its team. Its previous owners & mgmnt did not earn the peoples loyalties. And now here we are, with yet more insincerity from a prospective owner & a city council drowning in their own pride.

Killion is online now  
Old
05-04-2010, 11:05 PM
  #109
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
I believe we can take the NHL at its word in this case. They will try everything to save the franchise in Glendale.

If they can't, the franchise might be relocated? Time will tell.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
05-04-2010, 11:14 PM
  #110
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,035
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
They will try everything to save the franchise in Glendale.
This was always their goal.

Free Torts is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 06:26 AM
  #111
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Perhaps "how could they" is not the right question. Perhaps the correct question is: "what choice did they have"

- Glendale did not have dozens of interested parties beating down the door to assume the AMULA.

- The two groups that did show interest both required a new, heavily subsidized agreement.

- Goldwater makes it impossible to just hand the team public money in what previously would have been conventional sports subsidy methods.

- The AZ Leg Rep from Glendale proposed a more standard tax district to pay the team. It was dead in about 24 hours, never getting out of Committee

- According to Glendale officials, the NHL gave the city a deadline to complete a deal or lose the team.

So they cooked up this CFD plan and threw it out there. What else were they going to do? If you're down 2 goals with 1:30 left in the 3rd, you pull the goalie. Is that a bullet-proof case to get the game into overtime? No, but what else are you going to do? Pull everybody off the ice and concede?

Reinsdorf gets $200k for his efforts if they cannot get it set up. His team probably did little more than just tell Glendale what they would put into the deal. So JR has no reason not to go along for the ride.

Glendale is going to look awfully dumb for investing $180MM+ into a hockey arena in the desert if they lose the hockey team in less than 10 years. So there is no reason for them not to go to the wall.

I would suggest that no one really believes they have anything remotely similar to a "bullet proof case" for this CFD plan. But, really, what else were they going to do?
That certainly is a theory.

I don't think it squares very well with the evidence that this same financing solution was being worked on in 2009 through until the point when JR had had his fill of the bankruptcy process and effectively said to the NHL "go solve this business with Balsillie and then talk to me".

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 07:26 AM
  #112
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokes View Post
Is it possible that a man as wise as JR would dip so deeply into the pool with a distinct possibility that his bid would fail? IEH didn't see failure coming (at least for much of the time). Would JR be surprised if, for whatever reason, his bid wasn't successful? Would the rejection of his proposal (if it happened) be an indictment of the quality of the deal itself?
Yes it's possible. He has $200,000 in his pocket if this thing fails, and doesn't seem to be spending every waking hour sweating this out. Not a bad deal when you get paid for failure. That doesn't mean he knows it's going to fail, but his participation is far from a sign that this thing will certainly go through.

CGG is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 08:11 AM
  #113
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I wouldn't necessarily consider that a guarantee. An AHL team that draws well? Yes, I'd probably agree with that. The difference between drawing 8000 a game and 11000 a game isn't too large.

However only 2 AHL teams out of 29 averaged over 8000 attendance and an additional 2 averaged between 7000-8000 (Link). If the AHL team draws below 3000 a game like the Lowell Devils did this past year, that's a huge drop off from the 11000 the Coyotes were drawing and I would have to believe do little to stem the losses from managing the Jobing.com arena.
The NJ affiliate has always drawn horribly so you can't really use them as a benchmark or any type of mark. Secondly, the 3,00 fan drop off is not big but the tick price drop off is. $75 seats for an NHL game are usually less than half that for an AHL game. This also though may lead to increased sales because a family of 4 can actually afford to attend.

I would think, though, that they could get much more revenue out of the arena by booking it for concerts and monster truck rallies and disney on ice than for hockey at any level.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 08:31 AM
  #114
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Bingo!. This is exactly where I have a problem with the "liberal" interpretations' of the CFD (and no kidding, never mind the $100M LOC alligator in the bathtub). Again though, how could council for the COG/JR begin to contemplate such a proposal unless they felt they had a bullet-proof case to get this thing done, and done no later than June?. Real head scratcher.
Considering the MOU states that the city anticipates getting the CFD strucutre in place sometime in the 90 to 120 day period from the signing of the MOU which was April 1st I believe there's no way this is done by June. We're looking at a July to August period.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 08:49 AM
  #115
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
That certainly is a theory. I don't think it squares very well with the evidence that this same financing solution was being worked on in 2009 through until the point when JR had had his fill of the bankruptcy process and effectively said to the NHL "go solve this business with Balsillie and then talk to me".
True enough GSC. It's known that Beasley was talking to the Reinsdorf/Kaites group quite possibly as early as fall 08. I think they dropped out of the bidding last year for several reasons, but mainly because his offer was put under the microscope & wasn't passing any smell-tests. Better to have the NHL fend-off JB, purchase the team, Reinsdorf riding back into town 15 minutes before High Noon with a very similar offer, triggers' cocked. Hardball the COG as last man standing. If it flys', great. If not?. Appearances & obligations met. Too bad so sad.

Killion is online now  
Old
05-05-2010, 08:57 AM
  #116
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Considering the MOU states that the city anticipates getting the CFD strucutre in place sometime in the 90 to 120 day period from the signing of the MOU which was April 1st I believe there's no way this is done by June. We're looking at a July to August period.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV Cheswick, but from all I've read, watched & seen, all conspiracy theories aside, best/worse case scenarios' considered, I simply cannot see the NHL waiting until late July or August to close a deal which has a better than 50% chance of being challenged & then drawn out through litigation til Kingdom Come all the while continuing to finance the Coyotes operation. Makes no sense. Beyond optimistic.


Last edited by Killion: 05-05-2010 at 09:00 AM. Reason: typos';
Killion is online now  
Old
05-05-2010, 08:59 AM
  #117
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
In his pocket? Hardly. The $200k would only pay for a fraction of JR's legal fees incurred in the course of this proposed transaction. JR is almost certainly in for $500k as a bare minimum to date, with a lot of heavy lifting to go.

As for him spending every waking hour, how on earth would you (or I or anyone else) know? This seems like another "if it isn't happening in the papers, it isn't happening" type of statement.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 09:00 AM
  #118
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV Cheswick, but from all I've read, watched & seen, all conspiracy theories, best/worse case scenarios', simply cannot see the NHL waiting until late July or August to close a deal which has a better than 50% chance of being challenged & the drawn out through litigation til Kingdom Come all the while continuing to finance the Coyotes operation. Makes no sense.
Again, though, killion, who is going to challenge it?

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 09:02 AM
  #119
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,035
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Again, though, killion, who is going to challenge it?
Goldwater suing on behalf of a citizen?

Free Torts is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 09:12 AM
  #120
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Again, though, killion, who is going to challenge it?
Well, if we follow a critical path, lets consider the following; 1) I would assume council for both parties is currently negotiating/drafting the formalized AMULA. Absent any serious sticking points that could delay its' release, we can look forward to seeing it shortly; 2) Once released, as CasualFan & others have posited here-in, the usage of the CFD funds seems to have been rather "liberally" applied & is open to challenge; the LOC aspect etc by the GI. 3) Their are questions surrounding the very nature of the MOU & ultimately the AMULA itself with respect to "fair dealing" (Sitren). Any light/edification you can shine on this much appreciated...

Killion is online now  
Old
05-05-2010, 10:23 AM
  #121
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJP View Post
Goldwater suing on behalf of a citizen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, if we follow a critical path, lets consider the following; 1) I would assume council for both parties is currently negotiating/drafting the formalized AMULA. Absent any serious sticking points that could delay its' release, we can look forward to seeing it shortly; 2) Once released, as CasualFan & others have posited here-in, the usage of the CFD funds seems to have been rather "liberally" applied & is open to challenge; the LOC aspect etc by the GI. 3) Their are questions surrounding the very nature of the MOU & ultimately the AMULA itself with respect to "fair dealing" (Sitren). Any light/edification you can shine on this much appreciated...
In order to sue, the Goldwater Institute needs to identify someone in whose name they can litigate. That person must have "standing" (they have to have a particular interest at stake). This means that, to the extent that it involves a document to which the CoG is a party (the AMULA itself), it can be a citizen of the CoG. For the CFD, however, the statute requires that it be someone with an interest in the lands which are within the CFD.

As noted previously, the CFD is only going to cover parties who voluntarily submit to the CFD. Since they are voluntarily submitting to the CFD, I don't think that someone who has voluntarily agreed to make themselves subject to the CFD is going to turn around and allow themselves to be the party who will sue the CFD.

As to the CoG documents, of course they do not exist as yet. It would seem, though, that the "gifty" parts of the proposed transaction all reside within the CFD. I am hard pressed to identify any aspect of the CoG part of the proposed transaction which involves a subsidy by the CoG (although the CFD is another matter).

So we have what seems to be the following situation:

1. the CoG part which has no apparent subsidy; and
2. the CFD part which has subsidies but no one with standing who is going to complain about them.

Casualfan has suggested that the State AG might have some standing to challenge the CFD as being properly constituted. I cannot say whether the AG could do so or not, but I would say that I cannot envision a senario where they would practically want to do so, given that the CFD applies only to parties who voluntarily agree to submit to it. There seems to be no upside to doing so, and there is some political downside for sure.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 10:55 AM
  #122
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
In order to sue, the Goldwater Institute needs to identify someone in whose name they can litigate. That person must have "standing" (they have to have a particular interest at stake). This means that, to the extent that it involves a document to which the CoG is a party (the AMULA itself), it can be a citizen of the CoG. For the CFD, however, the statute requires that it be someone with an interest in the lands which are within the CFD.

As noted previously, the CFD is only going to cover parties who voluntarily submit to the CFD. Since they are voluntarily submitting to the CFD, I don't think that someone who has voluntarily agreed to make themselves subject to the CFD is going to turn around and allow themselves to be the party who will sue the CFD.

As to the CoG documents, of course they do not exist as yet. It would seem, though, that the "gifty" parts of the proposed transaction all reside within the CFD. I am hard pressed to identify any aspect of the CoG part of the proposed transaction which involves a subsidy by the CoG (although the CFD is another matter).

So we have what seems to be the following situation:

1. the CoG part which has no apparent subsidy; and
2. the CFD part which has subsidies but no one with standing who is going to complain about them.

Casualfan has suggested that the State AG might have some standing to challenge the CFD as being properly constituted. I cannot say whether the AG could do so or not, but I would say that I cannot envision a senario where they would practically want to do so, given that the CFD applies only to parties who voluntarily agree to submit to it. There seems to be no upside to doing so, and there is some political downside for sure.

Well if I understand the proposed CFD correctly its based entirely on revenues and not on taxation of the affected land. If that's the case those that are "unjustly" punished would be concert goers who are now being asked to fork over $20 for parking to support and NHL team they have no interest in. While parking for the NHL team itself is a fraction of that amount. The upside I suppose would be not allowing this fee structure.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 11:04 AM
  #123
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
In order to sue, the Goldwater Institute needs to identify someone in whose name they can litigate. That person must have "standing" (they have to have a particular interest at stake). This means that, to the extent that it involves a document to which the CoG is a party (the AMULA itself), it can be a citizen of the CoG. For the CFD, however, the statute requires that it be someone with an interest in the lands which are within the CFD.
Ah. I see. And of course with the CFD being strictly by "voluntary submission" pretty unlikely anyone's going to "volunteer to participate" and then turn around & put their name on a writ!. Certainly not Steve Ellman nor likely any of the merchants etc at Westgate. Certainly politically the downside outweighs' the upside to the AG challenging the COG's creation of the CFD. HOWEVER, I believe some are of the opinion that the implications' of the MOU & subsequent AMULA would not require the GI's need to procure a sponsor to challenge, or again, without a sponsor, the dog dont hunt?...

Killion is online now  
Old
05-05-2010, 11:29 AM
  #124
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post

As noted previously, the CFD is only going to cover parties who voluntarily submit to the CFD. Since they are voluntarily submitting to the CFD, I don't think that someone who has voluntarily agreed to make themselves subject to the CFD is going to turn around and allow themselves to be the party who will sue the CFD.
From my understanding, part of the area zoned for the CFD is vacant city property. If they city owns the property, than a citizen can claim as a taxpayer that they have subsequent interest.

Of course if I am mistaken as to the fact there is city owned property involved, it eliminates my point.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
05-05-2010, 11:30 AM
  #125
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Well if I understand the proposed CFD correctly its based entirely on revenues and not on taxation of the affected land. If that's the case those that are "unjustly" punished would be concert goers who are now being asked to fork over $20 for parking to support and NHL team they have no interest in. While parking for the NHL team itself is a fraction of that amount. The upside I suppose would be not allowing this fee structure.
You stole my post!! The formation of the CFD being contested would require the interested party but the use of the funds is a different story and i am sure GI (for Goldwater Institute since Goldwater in one word) can find something or someone to use to interject themselves. They do have some pretty good lawyers working for them.

Tommy Hawk 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 08:57 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.