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 IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-22-2010, 10:38 PM
  #51
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
And that no one else who wanted to keep it in phoenix was able to step up to the plate to close the deal.

Here is the thing about JR's alleged offer sheet - no one has disclosed the details of the offer. Alleged because no evidence has been presented. The offer sheet was not presented as any evidence in the court or published anywhere else. It may have been simply "here you go Jerry, I will five you nothing and take over the liabilities of the team and the NHL will waive what you owe them."
Certainly there is scant evidence of the exact nature of the original offer, but it was discussed by all parties in the depositions and there was no contention that the offer did not exist.


Quote:
Which CFD? I thought there were two on the agenda.
Not two CFD's. Two of the creation steps (the "petition to create" and the actual creation).

Interesting fact on the first step:

This "petition" is the document that is signed by 100% of the landowners holding land within the district. It is the necessary precondition to step two above (the actual creation of the CFD).

As such, any speculation by some that Mr. Ellman will not agree to the CFD is now moot (as it always was, IMO, since it would not have been presented as a financing solution in the first place without him preemptively being on board).

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 10:43 PM
  #52
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Certainly there is scant evidence of the exact nature of the original offer, but it was discussed by all parties in the depositions and there was no contention that the offer did not exist.


Not two CFD's. Two of the creation steps (the "petition to create" and the actual creation).

Interesting fact on the first step:

This "petition" is the document that is signed by 100% of the landowners holding land within the district. It is the necessary precondition to step two above (the actual creation of the CFD).

As such, any speculation by some that Mr. Ellman will not agree to the CFD is now moot (as it always was, IMO, since it would not have been presented as a financing solution in the first place without him preemptively being on board).
I thought the CFD was only covering property owned by the city....

Also, as someone here pointed out, just because they did not contest the existence of the offer doesn't mean it really did exist, similar to just because the numbers submitted by moyes were not contested does not mean they were true.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 10:51 PM
  #53
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
I thought the CFD was only covering property owned by the city....

Also, as someone here pointed out, just because they did not contest the existence of the offer doesn't mean it really did exist, similar to just because the numbers submitted by moyes were not contested does not mean they were true.
Initially it is city-owned property only, and does not include any private land. It can always be expanded in the future if the district wishes to expand and land owners wish to be a part of it.

RR is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 10:55 PM
  #54
DeathToAllButMetal
Let it all burn.
 
DeathToAllButMetal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
TGF?. Their is a very good reason why people assume that JR was prepared to buy the team without Moyes going BK because prior to him doing so, literally within hours of his filing for protection, Gary Bettman had an offer sheet in his pocket from Reinsdorf to Moyes to buy the club. Never got a chance to present it. Secondly, it was wise & very prudent on TNSE's part NOT to get involved in anyway with the idiocy unleashed by Reckless Richard Rodier's plan to usurp league rules through bankruptcy court & turn a stationary asset portable & get themselves Blackballed along with Balsillie. I would assume TNSE has "real lawyers" who wouldve' pointed out the folly of such a plan instead of following the lead of someone who likely obtained their law degree from an offer on the back of a pack of matches.
I've heard that story. I don't buy it. What would Reinsdorf have done with the lease? You really think that he would have just slipped Moyes $140 million or whatever, no questions asked? We've never heard what exactly Reinsdorf was prepared to do on the day the team went into bankruptcy. All we know is what Bettman has said later on. And if Jerry was that interested way back then, he'd own the team by now.

I know about the Rodier gambit, and am not sure if it's entirely folly. I mean, Balsillie came within a whisker of buying the club. You get a different judge from Baum and maybe he gets the team. Or if Balsillie had offered Glendale more than $40 million, he gets enough councillors on board to swing a vote and get them to endorse his bid.

DeathToAllButMetal is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:13 PM
  #55
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
I thought the CFD was only covering property owned by the city....

Also, as someone here pointed out, just because they did not contest the existence of the offer doesn't mean it really did exist, similar to just because the numbers submitted by moyes were not contested does not mean they were true.
Noted, but that is not what i am getting at.

In depositions, Moyes acknowledged that JR's offer was on its way to him.

As such, it is not a matter of not being contested, but rather as having been acknowledged. My previous post was not clear in this respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Initially it is city-owned property only, and does not include any private land. It can always be expanded in the future if the district wishes to expand and land owners wish to be a part of it.
RR (and WF), I do not believe that is correct. My understanding is that the Westgate facility is also included within the CFD boundaries. I believe it has been so stated in council proceedings, if memory serves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
I've heard that story. I don't buy it. What would Reinsdorf have done with the lease? You really think that he would have just slipped Moyes $140 million or whatever, no questions asked? We've never heard what exactly Reinsdorf was prepared to do on the day the team went into bankruptcy. All we know is what Bettman has said later on. And if Jerry was that interested way back then, he'd own the team by now.
Actually, as noted above, Mr. Moyes acknowledged under oath that the JR offer was on its way, so calling it a "story" is inaccurate IMO.

As well, it is clear to any reasonable observer that the nature of the investment was negatively impacted to a material degree by the bankruptcy process and the manner in which Moyes conducted himself with the customers of the business. If anything, JR would have pulled his investment because he felt it had sustained too much damage from the bankruptcy and Moyes`actions to come back from, or even if it did, the ROI would no longer be sufficient.

Quote:
I know about the Rodier gambit, and am not sure if it's entirely folly. I mean, Balsillie came within a whisker of buying the club. You get a different judge from Baum and maybe he gets the team. Or if Balsillie had offered Glendale more than $40 million, he gets enough councillors on board to swing a vote and get them to endorse his bid.
To characterize the JB offer as having come within a whisker is a gross overstatement IMO. Even Tom Salerno, Moyes' bankruptcy counsel (and by far the most qualified member of the JB/Moyes legal team) opined to Rodier that it was a longshot at best. Glendale endorsing his bid would not have won JB the case, either, i am comfortable in saying. At the end of the day, the NHL's interest was held to be not capable of being satisfied under the bankruptcy, and thus the NHL`s consent would have been required.

On top of the arguments in which they expressly won, the NHL had about a dozen or so hooks that Baum J. could have just as readily used had it been necessary. There was no chance of JB prevailing.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:15 PM
  #56
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
Which CFD? I thought there were two on the agenda.
No. There were two agenda items related to the same CFD.

1. A vote to accept the petition to create a CFD.
2. A vote to actually create the CFD requested by the petition.

Quote:
13. RATIFICATION OF PETITION TO CREATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT

Purpose: This is a request for City Council to ratify the filing of a petition pursuant to A.R.S.
48-702 requesting the formation of a community facilities district that incorporates city-owned
land. The petition, which is signed by 100% of the landowners holding land within a district
area that has no residents, allows the city to adopt a resolution that creates the district.

Council Strategic Goals or Key Objectives Addressed: This request supports Council’s goal of
one community with quality economic development in our entertainment district.

Background: Arizona statutes have provided for community facility districts since 1988. These
entities are granted the ability to collect and disburse revenue, enter into contracts, issue debt
obligations, and conduct other business and operational activities. The formation of a district will
create a valuable development tool that will assist in assuring that public facilities are utilized to
the maximum extent, and support continued economic development in the area.

Previous Council/Staff Actions: Staff has discussed the creation of a community facilities
district with Council during workshop meetings and Council Meetings on April 13, 2010, May
11, 2010, and June 8, 2010.

The necessary petition and general plan for the district was filed with the City Clerk on June 11,
2010.

Budget Impacts & Costs: Ratification of the petition has no budget impact.

Recommendation: Waive reading beyond the title ratify the Petition for the Creation of City of
Glendale, Arizona Community Facilities District Number Two.
Quote:
21. FORMATION OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT TWO

Purpose: This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution to form a community facilities
district named the City of Glendale, Arizona Community Facilities District Two (CFD2), which
will initially incorporate city-owned land surrounding the Arena.

The funding mechanism for the CFD2 as an entity independent of the city will be new, userdriven
revenue sources that are directly related to uses benefiting the land within the district.

Council Strategic Goals or Key Objectives Addressed: This request supports Council’s goal of
one community with quality economic development in our entertainment district.

Background: Arizona statutes have provided for community facility districts since 1988. These
entities are granted the ability to collect and disburse revenue, enter into contracts, issue debt
obligations, and conduct other business and operational activities. The formation of the CFD2
will create a valuable development tool that will assist in assuring that public facilities are
utilized to the maximum extent, and support continued economic development in the area.
Revenue will be generated through activities at the arena and within the surrounding district.
Previous Council/Staff Actions: Staff has discussed the creation of a CFD2 with Council during
workshop meetings and Council Meetings on April 13, 2010, May 11, 2010, and June 8, 2010.

Budget Impacts & Costs: The CFD2 will be self-funding and rely on revenue generation from
fees, assessments, and contractual income related to activities that directly benefit the district.

Recommendation: Waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the
Notification of Intent.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:18 PM
  #57
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
RR (and WF), I do not believe that is correct. My understanding is that the Westgate facility is also included within the CFD boundaries. I believe it has been so stated in council proceedings, if memory serves.
I'll go back and check tonight's transcript for clarification, but it was mentioned several times that the CFD as initially formed would include "city-owned land" only. Specifically mentioned was the arena itself, the adjacent Conference Center, and parking lots. No mention of Westgate.

Also, during discussion with council tonight Beasley reminded members the idea of a CFD around the arena had been discussed by COG for at least 18 months. That gets us back to Dec. 2008. A significant date, IMO.


Last edited by RR: 06-22-2010 at 11:23 PM.
RR is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:22 PM
  #58
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
I'll go back and check tonight's transcript for clarification, but it was mentioned several times that the CFD as initially formed would include "city-owned land" only. Specifically mentioned was the arena itself, the Civic Center, and parking lots. No mention of Westgate.

Also, during discussion with council tonight Beasley reminded members the idea of a CFD around the arena had been discussed by COG for at least 18 months. That gets us back to Dec. 2008. A significant date, IMO.
That is what is stated in the agenda item:

Quote:
Purpose: This is a request for City Council to adopt a resolution to form a community facilities
district named the City of Glendale, Arizona Community Facilities District Two (CFD2), which
will initially incorporate city-owned land surrounding the Arena
.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:27 PM
  #59
Killion
Global Moderator
Semolina Pilchard
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eiffel Tower
Posts: 21,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
I've heard that story. I don't buy it. I know about the Rodier gambit, and am not sure if it's entirely folly.
Complete fabrications given by numerous parties in various depositions & interviews. Nice one. Baum was a hack lawyer with a cheesy diploma from a lousy law school in Tempe' who wouldnt' be able to make up his mind to stay or go if his house was on fire?. Heard that story. Dont buy it. If getting Blackballed from a club you desperately want to join, likely for life, based on a long-odds legal scenario, after 2 previous very public skirmishes' isnt the very definition of "folly" I dont know what is. Ask Jerry Moyes as he's writing a final cheque to the NHL for, maybe as much as $61M, if this strategy wasnt folly?. And your advice would have had TNSE step into the middle of that?. Stick to Defence Todd.

Killion is online now  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:33 PM
  #60
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Complete fabrications given by numerous parties in various depositions & interviews. Nice one. Baum was a hack lawyer with a cheesy diploma from a lousy law school in Tempe' who wouldnt' be able to make up his mind to stay or go if his house was on fire?. Heard that story. Dont buy it. If getting Blackballed from a club you desperately want to join, likely for life, based on a long-odds legal scenario, after 2 previous very public skirmishes' isnt the very definition of "folly" I dont know what is. Ask Jerry Moyes as he's writing a final cheque to the NHL for, maybe as much as $61M, if this strategy wasnt folly?. And your advice would have had TNSE step into the middle of that?. Stick to Defence Todd.
And don't forget Moyes paid all the legal bills, too. He could have walked away free-and-clear. Instead he's still in court, out 10s of millions of dollars in legal costs, and facing a $61M lawsuit.

RR is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:35 PM
  #61
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
i dont understand...if the CFD is only on city owned land then where will the revenue come from to fund it?...were there not 3 parts to the CFD?....ticket tax, parking revenues and a property tax?

"The CFD will establish assessments upon and collect the revenues from the landowners within the district..."

how do they do that if the land is owned by the city?...does glendale plan to use government money to pay a tax on its own land to support the CFD?...that wouldnt surprise me, but is that what is happening?

http://glendaleaz.com/documents/060410_MOU.pdf


Last edited by peter sullivan: 06-22-2010 at 11:42 PM.
peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:40 PM
  #62
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
i dont understand...if the CFD is only on city owned land then where will the revenue come from to fund it?...were there not 3 parts to the CFD?....ticket tax, parking revenues and a property tax?

"The CFD will establish assessments upon and collect the revenues from the landowners within the district..."

how do they do that if the land is owned by the city?...the city will reassess its own alnd and pay the CFD?
Not sure why you're confused. Ticket surcharges and parking fees for arena events will initially fund the CFD. It can be expanded in the future if the district wishes to do so.

RR is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:45 PM
  #63
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Not sure why you're confused. Ticket surcharges and parking fees for arena events will initially fund the CFD. It can be expanded in the future if the district wishes to do so.
so what does that line in the MOU mean?

i was under the impression that there were 3 funding mechanisms, parking, tickets and some kind of landowner assessment....did i read that wrong?

if there are really only 2 sources of income for up to $17.5 million a year, those are going to be some serious ticket surcharges....at the current level of arena use that would be in the neighbourhood of $20/ticket for every event to raise the $12m or so needed to get to that number.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:49 PM
  #64
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
I'll go back and check tonight's transcript for clarification, but it was mentioned several times that the CFD as initially formed would include "city-owned land" only. Specifically mentioned was the arena itself, the adjacent Conference Center, and parking lots. No mention of Westgate.

Also, during discussion with council tonight Beasley reminded members the idea of a CFD around the arena had been discussed by COG for at least 18 months. That gets us back to Dec. 2008. A significant date, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
That is what is stated in the agenda item:
Noted, got it now. I seem to recall a different approach at one time or other, but it is moot at this point. I retract my prior assertion.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:51 PM
  #65
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
if there are really only 2 sources of income for up to $17.5 million a year, those are going to be some serious ticket surcharges.
I think you're getting in too much of a hurry, PS. What passed tonight was the formation of a CFD involving city-owned land only, that can be expanded in the future. If I was betting I'd say it's probably more about time-sensitivity to get the district formed. I fully expect Westgate will be included in the CFD in the near future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
so what does that line in the MOU mean?
Exactly what it says. That if/when private properties are part of the CFD owners can be subject to assessments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Noted, got it now. I seem to recall a different approach at one time or other, but it is moot at this point. I retract my prior assertion.
I'm sure Westgate will be involved soon. My guess is in the interest of time to get it formed it starts with city land only


Last edited by RR: 06-22-2010 at 11:57 PM.
RR is offline  
Old
06-22-2010, 11:58 PM
  #66
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
I think you're getting in too much of a hurry, PS. What passed tonight was the formation of a CFD involving city-owned land only, that can be expanded in the future. If I was betting I'd say it's probably more about time-sensitivity to get the district formed. I fully expect Westgate will be included in the CFD in the near future.
im in a hurry?.....what is the point of establishing a CFD that doesnt have the ability to fulfill the requirements of the the very CFD it is establishing?

its pretty obvious that without private landowners kicking in money there is no way that the CFD will be able to raise enough money...will they be able to transfer ownership and satisfy IEH's banks without that major piece of revenue included?....

nobody else finds it odd that they are proceeding with only 2/3 of their strategy in place?


Last edited by peter sullivan: 06-23-2010 at 12:05 AM.
peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:05 AM
  #67
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
im in a hurry?.....what is the point of establishing a CFD that doesnt have the ability to fulfill the requirements of the the very CFD it is establishing?

its pretty obvious that without private landowners kicking in money there is no way that the CFD will be able to fulfill its requirements...will they be able to transfer ownership and satisfy IEH's banks without that major piece of revenue adding to the CFD?....

nobody else finds it odd that they are not lining up their ducks before proceeding?
Peter, the landowners petition for creation of the CFD has been approved. The CFD has been voted in and can be expanded at any time. I'm sure you'll be satisfied when the CFD includes Westgate the day of or shortly after a new team owner takes over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agenda Glasses View Post
When will the NHL come to their senses and just move this pathetic franchise?
Had Balsillie not caused this mess in mid-2009, and if no local owner stepped up, probably would have been before the start of the 2009-10 season.

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:10 AM
  #68
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
its not about me being satisfied....i just find it odd that they would start the process without such a critical part being included...its not like if westgate doesnt join it wont matter...they are a vital source of revenue....i cant imagine that both the bank and the NHL will not need that piece of the puzzle included long before a new owner can take over.

am i missing something...how is this normal?

we are going to create something that relies on private property owners agreeing to fork over millions of dollars every year, but we are only going to include property that we own and have no ability to raise money on....bizarre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Had Balsillie not caused this mess in mid-2009, and if no local owner stepped up, probably would have been before the start of the 2009-10 season.
i also dont get why IEH and reinsdorf are always refered to as 'local owners'.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:15 AM
  #69
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
i also dont get why IEH and reinsdorf are always refered to as 'local owners'.
When I refer to "local" owner I mean one that would keep the team here.

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:17 AM
  #70
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
yeah, not just you...they both are always refered to as 'local'.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:17 AM
  #71
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
its not about me being satisfied....i just find it odd that they would start the process without such a critical part being included...its not like if westgate doesnt join it wont matter...they are a vital source of revenue....i cant imagine that both the bank and the NHL will not need that piece of the puzzle included long before a new owner can take over.

am i missing something...how is this normal?

we are going to create something that relies on 100% agreement of property owners forking over millions of dollars every year, but to guarantee the 100% agreement, we are only going to include property that we own and have no ability to raise money on....bizarre.
I don't think we're missing anything. Before the season starts or the sale of the team closes (whichever comes first), I'm sure Westgate immediately joins the district.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
yeah, not just you...they both are always refered to as 'local'.
And I think everyone is using the term as I am.

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:49 AM
  #72
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
I don't think we're missing anything. Before the season starts or the sale of the team closes (whichever comes first), I'm sure Westgate immediately joins the district.
.
that is my point though....if they are such an important part of the funding mechanism that IEH and their lenders are relying on would the private landowners not have to be part of the agreement long before the sale of the team closes?...or do they, the NHL and the banks not care because the city is guaranteeing the money will be there whether or not this piece of funding exists.....even if that is the case the extra $5m that they could draw from will certainly never be aquired without this revenue....that would have to factor into their busiess plan somehow.

does you being sure make it enough of a certainty for IEH to proceed to taking over the team without that funding included?...

i am not trying to get into an argument, i just cant understand how proceeding without a big part of the financing in place can be brushed off as an 'im sure' it will all work....if this process has taught us anything its that the 'im sure's' never seem to materialize easily.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:01 AM
  #73
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
that is my point though....if they are such an important part of the funding mechanism that IEH and their lenders are relying on would the private landowners not have to be part of the agreement long before the sale of the team closes?...or do they, the NHL and the banks not care because the city is guaranteeing the money will be there whether or not this piece of funding exists.....even if that is the case the extra $5m that they could draw from will certainly never be aquired without this revenue....that would have to factor into their busiess plan somehow.

does you being sure make it enough of a certainty for IEH to proceed to taking over the team without that funding included?...

i am not trying to get into an argument, i just cant understand how proceeding without a big part of the financing in place can be brushed off as an 'im sure' it will all work....if this process has taught us anything its that the 'im sure's' never seem to materialize easily.
Peter, they already ARE part of the agreement. The CFD that was approved and is being created allows for them; property owners (Ellman) have already petitioned to join the CFD; and their petition to join has been approved.

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:07 AM
  #74
Scottrocks58*
Six
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Peter, they already ARE part of the agreement. The CFD that was approved and is being created allows for them; property owners (Ellman) have already petitioned to join the CFD; and their petition to join has been approved.
I certainly would hope so, but the question still remains, why did they only go half way on this. Perhaps negotiations with Ellman regarding some type of quid pro quo have not been completed. I am sure that Ellman, in return for this, would like some or all of the previous fines, penalties or claims brought against him by the city mitigated.

Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:25 AM
  #75
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
I certainly would hope so, but the question still remains, why did they only go half way on this. Perhaps negotiations with Ellman regarding some type of quid pro quo have not been completed. I am sure that Ellman, in return for this, would like some or all of the previous fines, penalties or claims brought against him by the city mitigated.
Let's see if any of the crack media here bother to ask the question so we can get the official answer.

RR 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 01:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.