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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2011, 07:11 PM
  #26
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
I posted this in the last thread, but my suspicion is COG is trying to stall the sale as long as they can in hopes that it go past the NHL/TNSE's preferred date for taking over ownership (and making the proper preparations for relocation).

This way COG can offer up another 25 million to the NHL and hope they allow the circus to continue for another season. The fact that the Walker report went public has really turned up the heat on COG, but in terms of public opinion and as a potential threat from GWI. I think they want time to regroup, refocus and find a new way to "legally" give Hulsizer the money.

The question now is if the NHL will grant COG another year, even if they're willing to pay 25 million again (or more).
Maybe.

If Gary misses the off-ramp, the NHL loses its bargaining power and Glendale would have more elbow room to soften the NHL's dictatorial stand. Even if they eventually complete the deal along the same general lines, there are still a lot of details to fill in and Glendale could get a more even-handed deal.

Plus, if the next opportunity to move the team is another season away, there's time for GOG council to resile from its intended deal with Hulsizer and try to rework it in a more advantageous way. All it would take is two more councillors to join the dissenters, and sometime before the deal is done (even while in litigation with GWI, if that comes) bring the matter back before council to rethink it.

"Rethink" is a bit of an oxymoron here, when the existing deal has received such little critical thought by Glendale city council in the first place.

If I were Scruggly, I would still be trying to drag this out.

Mork is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:18 PM
  #27
TheHMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
Why doesn't Hulsizer just take the revenues from the parking and buy the team himself outright?

Or is there some kind of problem with that?

TheHMan is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:20 PM
  #28
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 26,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
Glendale
City Council Special Meeting Agenda
February 15th, 2011 - 1:00 pm

http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...s/021511SM.pdf

It's all about the Coyotes.
Does anybody see anything new here, other than asking the city manager to proceed as he sees fit? I wonder if there might be a few sparks flying this time around, though.

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:23 PM
  #29
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 15,672
vCash: 500
Somehow I don't see Bettman letting it get to the deadline for another season and saying "Alright, one more year!"... they either get it done by the NHL's deadline or the NHL sells to TNSE. Period.

Brodie is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:34 PM
  #30
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Figure C27 on page C-20 (page 125) is interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Conclusion section of Walker report notes that it can be used as a basis for a $70MM bond issuance. That's a little shy of the $100MM++ the city wanted...
Where is that? The only place I see that is in Appendix A on page 83 of the file. That's a letter dated August 24th that looks to be Walker's bid on the Glendale RFP. It reads as though the $60 to $70 million was coming from Glendale's RFP from August. The scope of services section of the bid doesn't indicate that Walker would be opining on the appropriateness of the size of the bond issue.

Is there somewhere else that they discuss the size of the issue?

Interesting that the original plan was to have the bonds issued in November.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:42 PM
  #31
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
I think what we have here is a classic Mexican standoff:



GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 07:51 PM
  #32
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,183
vCash: 500
Another stunning day. For what it is worth:

- I am not convinced the delay of bond sale report is accurate, but even if it is, I do not believe it is due to anything beyond the City of Glendale measuring the market. I think we are going a bit Hollywood to suggest the city is dragging to pass a deadline or the city is afraid of Goldwater.

- It is amusing that TLHocking is being sued for fraud. Regardless of how many other defendants are involved in the case, it is a plus for anyone seeking to derail the transaction. That said, I still firmly believe there is no chance of injunction based on the payment for parking rights.

- But, the Hocking report and litigation, combined with CoGs repeated and obvious aversion to Public Records requests, along with potential competitive bid violations could open the door to a complaint. We could quickly get into a gray area of procedure where injunctive relief could be granted.

- Calling Goldwater a PR Firm is an incredibly short sighted view of The Institution's abilities. That said, it would be a real long shot to file anything at this point. When the city identifies the funding source for the Arena Management deal and attempts to defend that portion of the agreement, then you might see Goldwater get some traction. By then, we will be so far down the road it won't even matter.

* Note - please feel free to disregard any of this analysis due to my previous posts which commended Glendale for their savvy in completing this deal - which somehow is still not completed.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:01 PM
  #33
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Question: could it be that the council is going to re-vote on this matter now that everyone is aware of the various parking lot studies? If it's a yes vote, GWI and critics can no longer use the argument that the councilors were not fully aware of the various studies.

On the other hand, I wonder if there is any possibility the council could vote down continued negotiations and throw in the towel on Tuesday? I doubt it, but have learned to expect the unexpected in this story.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:12 PM
  #34
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Question: could it be that the council is going to re-vote on this matter now that everyone is aware of the various parking lot studies? If it's a yes vote, GWI and critics can no longer use the argument that the councilors were not fully aware of the various studies.

On the other hand, I wonder if there is any possibility the council could vote down continued negotiations and throw in the towel on Tuesday? I doubt it, but have learned to expect the unexpected in this story.

GHOST
For sure! However, the flipside is that when they vote yes they will knowingly overpay for the parking based on Walkers most recent update. I don't know if GWI has any sticking power related to the Arizona gift clause violation but we will find out one way or another.

blues10 is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:14 PM
  #35
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
Figure C27 on page C-20 (page 125) is interesting



Where is that? The only place I see that is in Appendix A on page 83 of the file. That's a letter dated August 24th that looks to be Walker's bid on the Glendale RFP. It reads as though the $60 to $70 million was coming from Glendale's RFP from August. The scope of services section of the bid doesn't indicate that Walker would be opining on the appropriateness of the size of the bond issue.

Is there somewhere else that they discuss the size of the issue?

Interesting that the original plan was to have the bonds issued in November.
Mea culpa. You're right, of course, that that number is only found in Appendix A (my mind must have started glazing after reading for a while); but if you look at the numbers they come up with, they do support that general range of issuance, all considered.

Sorry for misspeaking.

metalfoot is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:25 PM
  #36
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Does anybody see anything new here, other than asking the city manager to proceed as he sees fit? I wonder if there might be a few sparks flying this time around, though.
In public perhaps not, but privately?. If I was the Mayor or one of Council who voted in favor of this proposal, even accepting the so obviously overly optimistic parking revenues, Id be asking for Beasley's, Tindals, Lynch's and most especially Hockings head. Frankly I would have turfed Beasley out when the Reinsdorf deal collapsed but thats another matter altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Another stunning day.... It is amusing that TLHocking is being sued for fraud.
Indeed. Im sure the prospective Bond Underwriters' are just chortling themselves silly.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:29 PM
  #37
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Mea culpa. You're right, of course, that that number is only found in Appendix A (my mind must have started glazing after reading for a while); but if you look at the numbers they come up with, they do support that general range of issuance, all considered.

Sorry for misspeaking.
It does. It's also interesting that the RFP probably went out in early to mid August. Wasn't that when IEH's exclusivity ran out?

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:36 PM
  #38
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
It looks like there is a change in the lease agreement:


According to the new arena lease, Glendale would set aside a $10 million escrow account for the new owner to draw from. The team owner could tap the account if Glendale failed to pay any of the $97 million in arena management fees that the city agreed to shell out over five years.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...#ixzz1DhyJvJLv

blues10 is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 08:43 PM
  #39
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,575
vCash: 500
I'm sorry, but this sounds like so much lipstick on a pig at this point... I am not now, nor am I intending to be a Jets fan (my Sens allegiance runs deep), but this shuffle to the agreement still doesn't change the main issue from GWI's standpoint.


Last edited by metalfoot: 02-11-2011 at 08:46 PM. Reason: Clarification
metalfoot is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 09:17 PM
  #40
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
What is this? $10 million escrow account for management fees? In case COG stops paying the management fee? Not even Hulsizer believes that COG can actually afford the ridiculous subsidy he's getting.

CGG is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 09:19 PM
  #41
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
There must be more to it than the $10M. It wouldn't do MH any good unless it also came with...

...say...

...an escape clause.

 
Old
02-11-2011, 09:21 PM
  #42
TheHMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
There must be more to it than the $10M. It wouldn't do MH any good unless it also came with...

...say...

...an escape clause.
The details of the article are fudged. They're really building a 10 Million dollar escape pod called 'Escrow'.

TheHMan is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 09:48 PM
  #43
PeeBee78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: T-Dot!
Country: India
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Ok so I'm reviewing this new report by Walker Parking Consultants and I see on page 80 (page 71 of the report) which shows parking revenue projections. So the Net Operating Income (NOI) which I assume is going to be used to pay the interest only on the bonds (not sure where the 100m in principal will come from) is looking like 2.1m in the first year and grows to 4-4.6m by year 10. That means that they are running a deficit for 10 years on the interest alone at 6%.

So now they are going to back that up with tax payer money. Isn't this a clear violation of the gift clause?

Or are they going to ignore this report and still assume they can easily generate the 6m?

Also this report assumes 9714 parking spots? I thought we were talking about 5500 parking spots? Are we now also including lots already owned by the COG? That's also a violation of the gift clause.

This also assumes they start collecting parking from now (or whenever the deal is consummated) before the end of this season.

Lots of discussion points in this report.....

PeeBee78 is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 09:55 PM
  #44
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
* Note - please feel free to disregard any of this analysis due to my previous posts which commended Glendale for their savvy in completing this deal - which somehow is still not completed.
They had me too, Casual Fan, and I've only been practicing law for 24 years. I thought it was inconceivable that the bonds would not be issued in December. It had all the outward appearances of a locked-down deal. Now, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what might happen next.

Mork is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 09:56 PM
  #45
King of Arcadia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
Maybe COG and MH should try to buy the Thrashers and let the Coyotes leave. It might be easier.

King of Arcadia is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 10:06 PM
  #46
Coach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Does anybody see anything new here, other than asking the city manager to proceed as he sees fit? I wonder if there might be a few sparks flying this time around, though.
Didn't anyone notice the 150 page lease pdf. hidden in the notice.

http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen...21511-SM01.pdf

Edit: or is this the old lease.

Coach is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 10:09 PM
  #47
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Yes the changes in the lease were noticed and several have already been pointed out.

blues10 is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 10:12 PM
  #48
crazycanuck900
Registered User
 
crazycanuck900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Gods country
Country: Canada
Posts: 110
vCash: 500
Can anyone tell me what the CoG has to offer the NHL? There must be a real reason why G.B. chooses not to end this circus! my take is that they
have no intentions of moving any team to Winnipeg!

crazycanuck900 is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 10:12 PM
  #49
King of Arcadia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
I set up a second bank account with tens of thousands of dollars in it in case my regular account is too low to pay my car loan on the vehicle I sold.and I am going to pay the buyer $1,000 a month to maintain the car.he is going to pay me back when he wins the lottery (I am paying for the tickets for him) Does this sound like a good idea? If I don't do this, the mechanic that services the car (and my wife)once a year will go out of business and his family will have to eat the cushions from their couch.

King of Arcadia is offline  
Old
02-11-2011, 10:38 PM
  #50
davemac1313
Registered User
 
davemac1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Keewatin, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 524
vCash: 500
Council has an executive session at 9:30 am, followed by the Vote at 1:00 pm, on Tuesday the 15th, followed by a regular meeting at 1:30 pm. We will see and hear the vote only. All the debate will be behind closed doors......thats open politics. 20 minutes tops for constituent speaking....sounds like another sham rodeo to me.

davemac1313 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 03:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.