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.

Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2010, 07:08 PM
  #251
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvisisdead View Post
Well put... Except no one has been able to adequately explain how they plan to squeeze $7.5 million per year out of a parking stone, or how the shortfall would be addressed.

The CoG keeps saying that there are other ways to make up the shortfall (and there are other potential sources of revenue from the CFD that could be used), but is a promise from a desperate City Council going to be enough for a bank to lend money against? Or enough to quell the (justifiable) fears of the BoG of another owner flame-out?
We have discussed the first point previously. THe plan appears to be based on 250k cars for hockey events and 250k cars for non-hockey events.

As to whethere there is a "parking stone" that needs to be squeezed, that seems to be based on an assumption regarding the market for which you would have no data whatsoever (unless you can perhaps articulate a rationale).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
In its current state the team is unable to operate in the marketplace without the additional revenue streams provided by the CFD, and even with them its' "iffy" at best. It's not a ShellGame per se' where things are hidden, more a re-allocation of existing revenue streams (parking revenues) & the creation of new ones (voluntary taxes/user fee's) funneled into the CFD, channeled back to the Coyotes. As argued here at length, debatable as to whether or not its in keeping with the legislation and not in breach of the gift clause statute; and the elephant in the room that has yet to be addressed is how does the COG intend to guarantee the revenue streams collected through the CFD meet or exceed the projected requirements as envisioned in the IEH MOU?.
REgarding the gift clause aspect, killion, that is not really a debate any more. THe constitution itself provides that gift clause of the constitution does not apply to CFD's.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 08:17 PM
  #252
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
REgarding the gift clause aspect, killion, that is not really a debate any more. THe constitution itself provides that gift clause of the constitution does not apply to CFD's.
True but CFDs have their own criteria to meet....

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 09:33 PM
  #253
MarkMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfab1367 View Post
Just speculating, but I think for IEH to secure financing, they would have to offer some sort of personal guarantees to the lending institutions. With their MOU, they have basically indicated to any prospective lenders that the team will lose money. This may come down to the how much of their personal wealth they are willing to risk. In the current climate, it's difficult to say how much risk the lenders and the IEH boys are willing to take. I guess we'll see in the next ten days.
I'm also speculating here, but if IEH has paper and not liquid wealth, that might explain Jones' comments about the recent stock market correction in the same sentence as IEH having financing difficulties. If their personal guarantees to the lending institution were in part backed by equities the owners had in the stock market, and the stock market devalued those equities, that could cause the lenders to get squeamish.

But there's plenty of other reasons to be squeamish, the CFD being one and the ongoing question that, even if the owners have the wealth, are they willing to put it at risk and spend it to prop up the team?

It's details like those that I think this 10 days may be about resolving, and IMO what will be behind the downfall if this deal is scuttled.


Last edited by MarkMM: 06-09-2010 at 09:39 PM.
MarkMM is offline  
Old
06-09-2010, 09:43 PM
  #254
MarkMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Maybe DJ needs to be working on closing the deal, not tweeting and worrying about Shoalts. To contrast, Reinsdorf and Thomson have yet to much publicly other than to confirm some level of interest. In my opinion, it only reinforces the image that these guys may be more fluff than substance.
I'm really torn on that, it certainly doesn't seem what we have come to expect from a professional sports owner, but it does have the potential of engaging with the fans in a way that has proven successful with Rocky Wirtz in Chicago and Mark Cuban with the NBA.

The litmus test for me is does this help the franchise? Just because we're not used to it, doesn't make it a bad idea. I think it might hurt IEH's chances of getting the team, and their judgement should be questioned on some of these tweets, but as this article points out, a personal engagement with fans may be a modern-day reality with sports ownership:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...personal-touch

Thompson isn't in the position of having to convince fans to come and give his team a chance, and JR, well, he seems like an old-school owner to me, not saying that's bad, just saying it's not the automatically right thing to do, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Cool, so if I take a year off and start spending my own money in an effort to buy the Coyotes, that means I'm guaranteed to succeed too?
To be fair, I don't think he said anything about IEH being guaranteed to succeed, but rather that they wouldn't be spending this much money (no idea how much, but it's not zero) if there was no chance that they could actually afford the team.

(Though the Boots situation makes even that comment far from solid... )

MarkMM is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 12:33 AM
  #255
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMM View Post
To be fair, I don't think he said anything about IEH being guaranteed to succeed, but rather that they wouldn't be spending this much money (no idea how much, but it's not zero) if there was no chance that they could actually afford the team.

(Though the Boots situation makes even that comment far from solid... )
Yeah...Boots! The Golden boy for Bettman! Hilarious how that worked out. But...to give him credit...Bettman got the Ownership group that he wanted. Too bad the guys involved didn't forsee having to scoop up his share of the franchise when he landed in the clank.

I understand that IEH now has an out clause as soon as 5 years. So they are committed to the market....but want games played elsewhere to "boost revenue"....and also want to be able to leave in 5 years.

Heck....if I knew this crap could go on...I'd have got friends together and thrown a bid in the hat. I'm sure we could dodge creditors for 5 years before cashing in BIG TIME on a portable team.

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 01:51 AM
  #256
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,450
vCash: 500
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...7/daily43.html
IEH hires PR firm


http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...7/daily42.html
GM Malhoney lambastes Canadian journalists covering Coyotes business issues.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 02:04 AM
  #257
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...7/daily42.html
GM Malhoney lambastes Canadian journalists covering Coyotes business issues.
I think its rubbish, Moss said of the argument hockey cant work in warm weather U.S. markets.

The Coyotes have lost between $20 million and $50 million annually since moving to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996.



Seems the Phoenix Business Journal has the same "Canadian media" bias, but maybe it's just my perception.

Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 02:23 AM
  #258
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I think its rubbish, Moss said of the argument hockey cant work in warm weather U.S. markets.

The Coyotes have lost between $20 million and $50 million annually since moving to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996.



Seems the Phoenix Business Journal has the same "Canadian media" bias, but maybe it's just my perception.
Good point. To quote directly from the PBJ article in terms of what they state as fact:

Quote:
The Coyotes have lost between $20 million and $50 million annually since moving to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996
That's the Phoenix media, not the Canadian media. The one point that the Phoenix media could be criticized about is their complete and utter indifference to the local NHL franchise and the whole bankruptcy case. The franchise isn't even on the radar in the Phoenix metro area.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 02:29 AM
  #259
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
I understand that IEH now has an out clause as soon as 5 years.
I missed that part - is that confirmed?

 
Old
06-10-2010, 05:01 AM
  #260
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Yeah...Boots! The Golden boy for Bettman! Hilarious how that worked out. But...to give him credit...Bettman got the Ownership group that he wanted. Too bad the guys involved didn't forsee having to scoop up his share of the franchise when he landed in the clank.

I understand that IEH now has an out clause as soon as 5 years. So they are committed to the market....but want games played elsewhere to "boost revenue"....and also want to be able to leave in 5 years.

Heck....if I knew this crap could go on...I'd have got friends together and thrown a bid in the hat. I'm sure we could dodge creditors for 5 years before cashing in BIG TIME on a portable team.
Your understanding is quite incorrect. The MOU is readily accessible to read. It clearly states otherwise.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 06:35 AM
  #261
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMM View Post
I'm really torn on that, it certainly doesn't seem what we have come to expect from a professional sports owner, but it does have the potential of engaging with the fans in a way that has proven successful with Rocky Wirtz in Chicago and Mark Cuban with the NBA.

The litmus test for me is does this help the franchise? Just because we're not used to it, doesn't make it a bad idea. I think it might hurt IEH's chances of getting the team, and their judgement should be questioned on some of these tweets, but as this article points out, a personal engagement with fans may be a modern-day reality with sports ownership:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...personal-touch

Thompson isn't in the position of having to convince fans to come and give his team a chance, and JR, well, he seems like an old-school owner to me, not saying that's bad, just saying it's not the automatically right thing to do, either.
Playing April Fool's jokes on overzealous journalists is also suspect, even if deserving.

Leonsis does a fine job of reaching out to fans, using the medium of the future (and today) in a far more effective manner.

Your litmus tests sounds eerily similar to the end justifying the mean. I don't agree that it does help the franchise, first of all, but that should not be the sole consideration.


Hiring a PR firm may be a step in the right direction however.

 
Old
06-10-2010, 06:43 AM
  #262
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,742
vCash: 500
As I understand the latest MOU, Ice Edge does have the right to notify Glendale that revenues are inadequate and give 180 days notice of their intention to sell. However, there are restrictions on the sale. They can only sell to a buyer that will honor the terms of the Glendale lease agreement, or they can walk away from the lease agreement if neither they nor the City can find a local owner. I am confused about what happens if there is no buyer willing to keep the team in Glendale, but I suppose we might be right back where we are now, but with some additional negative baggage for the franchise. As I understand it, this 180 day notice can be activated anytime within the first 5 years, so they don't have to wait five years to try to sell the team again. I have thought that this clause might cause the NHL and a lender to "gulp", since it doesn't give a clear path to selling the team to recover money in case there are no buyers interested in keeping the team in Glendale.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 07:27 AM
  #263
jessebelanger
Registered User
 
jessebelanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Good point. To quote directly from the PBJ article in terms of what they state as fact:



That's the Phoenix media, not the Canadian media. The one point that the Phoenix media could be criticized about is their complete and utter indifference to the local NHL franchise and the whole bankruptcy case. The franchise isn't even on the radar in the Phoenix metro area.

GHOST

Ghost, let's not get confused here, I don't think there's anyone disputing the facts that the Canadian media, and the American media, have presented.

What is dissapointing has been the spin that certain members of the Canadian media has put on these facts, and on the often rediculous conclusions that these people have drawn from limited information.

jessebelanger is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 08:30 AM
  #264
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...7/daily42.html
GM Malhoney lambastes Canadian journalists covering Coyotes business issues.
Maloney's words were a bit stronger than what PBJ reported:

Maloney critical of Canadian coverage of Coyotes

Quote:
Is nothing else going on in Canada, they have to focus on us? The country Im from, the (Toronto) Globe & Mail I thought has just been over the top in the negativity about this marketplace, almost trying to prove their point, regardless of what else is going on. Im really disappointed

I used to read that paper all the time, I thought it was a great paper. It just seems so biased toward, in my opinion, their writing; some of the writers, not all their writers. Eric Duhatschek is a terrific writer. But some of them have been just so negative to this whole franchise.

I know Commissioner (Gary) Bettman has some detractors, but the way they portrayed him is a disgrace. Its an embarrassment to be a Canadian. Thats my personal opinion, cmon.

RR is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 09:08 AM
  #265
elvisisdead
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=GSC2k2;26211065] THe plan appears to be based on 250k cars for hockey events and 250k cars for non-hockey events.

As to whethere there is a "parking stone" that needs to be squeezed, that seems to be based on an assumption regarding the market for which you would have no data whatsoever (unless you can perhaps articulate a rationale).

My point is we don't have any data that can back up their "plan" (just "projections", which appear to be optimistic, to say the least), which means we are all left to speculate whether: 1) the plan is realistic; 2) a lending institution will lend against such a "plan" without a solid guarantee from CoG (and not the CFD, which is supposed to be completely voluntary); and 3) whether the NHL is willing to approve the owners under such a plan.

I'm not advocating any side here, I'm just interested (and, I must say, sceptical) to see all of these things come together.

And that is isn't considering the 5 game, $5 million Saskatoon road trip...

elvisisdead is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 09:13 AM
  #266
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=elvisisdead;26225516]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
THe plan appears to be based on 250k cars for hockey events and 250k cars for non-hockey events.

As to whethere there is a "parking stone" that needs to be squeezed, that seems to be based on an assumption regarding the market for which you would have no data whatsoever (unless you can perhaps articulate a rationale).

My point is we don't have any data that can back up their "plan" (just "projections", which appear to be optimistic, to say the least), which means we are all left to speculate whether: 1) the plan is realistic; 2) a lending institution will lend against such a "plan" without a solid guarantee from CoG (and not the CFD, which is supposed to be completely voluntary); and 3) whether the NHL is willing to approve the owners under such a plan.

I'm not advocating any side here, I'm just interested (and, I must say, sceptical) to see all of these things come together.

And that is isn't considering the 5 game, $5 million Saskatoon road trip...
One thing to keep in mind that was brought up earlier is that the parking is not for just arena events. The lots are used for Cardinals parking as well.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 09:22 AM
  #267
elvisisdead
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Wolvesfan;26225581]
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvisisdead View Post

One thing to keep in mind that was brought up earlier is that the parking is not for just arena events. The lots are used for Cardinals parking as well.
Agreed. I know this has been hashed through a bunch of times (although I am still sceptical of the numbers). I'm also interested how the lender and the NHL view these revenue streams... Guess we'll just have to wait for the next few weeks to unfold.

elvisisdead is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 10:00 AM
  #268
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Wolvesfan;26225581]
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvisisdead View Post

One thing to keep in mind that was brought up earlier is that the parking is not for just arena events. The lots are used for Cardinals parking as well.
All the more reason why the Cardinals would crack open their parking lot for Coyotes games and other Jobbing.com events at slightly lower prices, thus taking a bunch of revenue away from the CFD.

CGG is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 10:06 AM
  #269
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
One thing to keep in mind that was brought up earlier is that the parking is not for just arena events. The lots are used for Cardinals parking as well.
I would be very interested to see the projections specifically for Cardinals games, and if that is included in the $7.5M IEH projects.

There are only 14,000 parking spots in the lots immediately surrounding UOP Stadium (capacity 63,400), so the Cardinals rely on the ~6,000 spots at Westgate/Jobing. There is season parking for UOP at the far northwest corner of Westgate (not sure what the Cardinals pay, if anything, to COG/Westgate for those 2,500 spots), but what Westgate began charging for last year was the 3,500 spots immediately across from the stadium (southeast corner of property, directly across Maryland Ave.)

At $20 a car (which could again include a $5 voucher good at any Westgate business), that's a potential of $70,000 a game, or $560,000 a year for 8 regular season games.

And if you add in just one concert or other large event (U2 drew 70,000+ and Wrestlemania 72,000+ in just the last few months), plus the annual Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, you get to $700,000 a year. If that's calculated into the $7.5M, it doesn't make that number look so far-fetched, if new arena management can better market the arena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post

All the more reason why the Cardinals would crack open their parking lot for Coyotes games and other Jobbing.com events at slightly lower prices, thus taking a bunch of revenue away from the CFD.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

The Cards can park 14,000 cars in and around UOP on their lots. They need Westgate's cooperation for the other 6,000+ when there's an event at UOP.


Last edited by RR: 06-10-2010 at 10:16 AM.
RR is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 10:29 AM
  #270
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post

All the more reason why the Cardinals would crack open their parking lot for Coyotes games and other Jobbing.com events at slightly lower prices, thus taking a bunch of revenue away from the CFD.
I also thought someone posted that there was an agreement between the two arena. But why would they want to open their lots, incur the expense of opening them, and then get few cars into the lots?

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 10:47 AM
  #271
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
As I understand the latest MOU, Ice Edge does have the right to notify Glendale that revenues are inadequate and give 180 days notice of their intention to sell. However, there are restrictions on the sale. They can only sell to a buyer that will honor the terms of the Glendale lease agreement, or they can walk away from the lease agreement if neither they nor the City can find a local owner. I am confused about what happens if there is no buyer willing to keep the team in Glendale, but I suppose we might be right back where we are now, but with some additional negative baggage for the franchise. As I understand it, this 180 day notice can be activated anytime within the first 5 years, so they don't have to wait five years to try to sell the team again. I have thought that this clause might cause the NHL and a lender to "gulp", since it doesn't give a clear path to selling the team to recover money in case there are no buyers interested in keeping the team in Glendale.
Nope. They cannot walk away if no owner is found.

If the CFD cannot meet it's obligations within the first 5 years, then IEH may give the City 180 days notice of their intention to sell. The City has first option to find a buyer at a Minimum Sales Price. If the City cannot or does not, then IEH may sell to a buyer who assumes the remainder of the AMULA. If neither happen, IEH is still on the hook for the lease.

The only way IEH escapes it's lease obligations is by a sale to new owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IEH MOU Sec 3.1(f)
f. Should the CFD Payment not be available during any of the first five years after and including the 2010-2011 season, at the conclusion of the fifth full season the following may occur:
1. The CFD will secure additional funds through new revenue streams that are sufficient to pay to Buyer the amount of any CFD Payment shortfalls during the previous years and provide reasonable assurances that no further shortfalls will occur; or,

2. In the event the CFD cannot pay the CFD Payment during the first five years after the 2010-2011 season, Buyer may provide the CFD and the City not less than 180 days notice of its intent to sell the Coyotes assets, and
i) During that notice period the City may secure a new buyer for an amount to be negotiated in the additional documents subject to negotiations that will not be greater than the outstanding amount of the initial debt plus any equity investment (“Minimum Sale Price”) and who will keep the Coyotes in Glendale, in which case Buyer will sell the Coyotes to the Glendale buyer or forego it’s recourse; or

ii) In the event the City has not secured a new buyer for the Minimum Sale Price during the notice period, Buyer may sell the Coyotes to a subsequent buyer who will honor the remaining term of the use and lease agreements that are anticipated by this MOU.

iii) In the event of either (i) or (ii) and upon conclusion of the sale to new owners, Buyers will be relieved of any obligation under the use and lease agreement for the Arena.

kdb209 is online now  
Old
06-10-2010, 11:04 AM
  #272
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Hiring a PR firm may be a step in the right direction however.
Are they hiring a PR Firm in HigherGround to polish their messaging & profile?. Are they hiring these political insiders to gain access?. Have they used the entire process, from BK up til now & moving forward as nothing more than an effective PR Campaign in & of itself in order to garner financial & political contacts while simultaneously receiving plenty of press in the process?. Their continuing obfuscations' pursuant to their financing enabled by the COG in asking for nothing more than a Term Sheet as "proof of bona-fides" insults the intelligence. I had seriously hoped, no matter how lopsided one considered Reinsdorfs offer to be, that at least a steady-hand would be on the tiller, the Coyotes either sink or swim having been given another shot at life. His announcement of Monday is to me as much a testament as to the total incompetence of Beasley/Tindal as it is to the Mayor's & Council Members' abrogation of their responsibilities in not facing up to the hard decisions they were & are being asked to make. Sorry to rant so, but honestly, my optimism is not what it once was & I fear the team is more likely to be moved within weeks as a result.

Killion is online now  
Old
06-10-2010, 11:14 AM
  #273
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
I also thought someone posted that there was an agreement between the two arena. But why would they want to open their lots, incur the expense of opening them, and then get few cars into the lots?
You have to figure with the 6000+ spaces at Westgate and just using 2 people per car, even on a sold out hockey night you don't need many spaces off site to handle the overflow. So even on a sold out night, a small % of the 14,000 UoP spots would be utilized for hockey fans. Plus as a Yotes and Cards ticket holder, I don't want the Cards giving away parking for Yotes games anymore than I want the Yotes giving away parking for Cards games. I want both teams to do well, and I don't mind paying a little extra, because I only buy what I can afford, and if I can't afford suite tickets and VIP parking, I can still afford to go to the games and have a great time, if my teams are HERE.

yotesreign is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 11:16 AM
  #274
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Are they hiring a PR Firm in HigherGround to polish their messaging & profile?. Are they hiring these political insiders to gain access?. Have they used the entire process, from BK up til now & moving forward as nothing more than an effective PR Campaign in & of itself in order to garner financial & political contacts while simultaneously receiving plenty of press in the process?. Their continuing obfuscations' pursuant to their financing enabled by the COG in asking for nothing more than a Term Sheet as "proof of bona-fides" insults the intelligence. I had seriously hoped, no matter how lopsided one considered Reinsdorfs offer to be, that at least a steady-hand would be on the tiller, the Coyotes either sink or swim having been given another shot at life. His announcement of Monday is to me as much a testament as to the total incompetence of Beasley/Tindal as it is to the Mayor's & Council Members' abrogation of their responsibilities in not facing up to the hard decisions they were & are being asked to make. Sorry to rant so, but honestly, my optimism is not what it once was & I fear the team is more likely to be moved within weeks as a result.
Killion, not sure why you're reacting so heatedly to this. It's very common. Once IEH closes the deal (if they close) I'm sure PR will go in-house. HighGround knows this market (they handle the Fiesta Bowl every year) and for now can help IEH get connected to the community and media.

RR is offline  
Old
06-10-2010, 11:50 AM
  #275
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Killion, not sure why you're reacting so heatedly to this.
Obviously I have doubts as to IEH's financial/practicable & business exp. bona-fides RR. Like their enthusiasm, just a real gap in terms of credibility.

Killion is online now  
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 07:36 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.