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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix XXIII - Bond: The Phoenix Project

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2011, 01:01 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 32,709
vCash: 500
Phoenix XXIII - Bond: The Phoenix Project

I did like The Plight of the Phoenix, but given all the bond issues....

Thread XXII link: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=881563

Fugu is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:37 PM
  #2
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 goyotes View Post
I can appreciate the honesty. And to be honest, I am not surprised to hear that. So let's get over the pretense of whether this deal is the best of no real good alternatives for the CoG. Again, Phoenix bad....Winnipeg good. Got that point about 20 threads ago.
I do not like the way pro sports leagues take advantage of cities -- playing one against the other -- and try to extort public funding for what is essentially private business. The proposed Coyotes deal is one of the most ridiculous examples of corporate welfare subsidies for a professional sports franchise. Massive public subsidies also skew the free market allowing teams to exist in markets where there is not sufficient demand. So, yes, while it would be nice to see the Coyotes move back to Canada, I find those other aspects interesting as well.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:43 PM
  #3
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Seriously? Even MH conceded that CoG dragged their feet in disclosing all relevant documents to GWI.

You're getting into interesting territory by claiming their intent is to drive up the bond price. I believe their intent is to prevent Glendale from violating Arizona's Constitution. Perhaps you have better information?

Edit: I'm also under the impression that only Glendale can allow any bond sale to move forward. They are hardly the victim you pain them in this process, and there is a constitution in Arizona. Perhaps your quibble is with that document.
Let me ask you, after the thousands of recent posts, and the hundreds of pages of documents we have all reviewed in our spare time, do you really believe that the GWI lacks the information necessary to determine whether this transaction is unconstitutional? I found that exceptionally diffficult to believe personally. I also am of the opinion that the GWI is doing what they can to kill this deal because they don't like it from a policy standpoint. If it was unconstitutional, the GWI would be in court today seeking an injuction to stop the City from selling bonds to secure the sale of the team. Because, it is only their action at this point that is the only chance there is to prevent this from closing.

So far, on this issue, the GWI has proven itself to be a paper tiger.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:45 PM
  #4
davemac1313
Registered User
 
davemac1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Keewatin, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Not sure they need an injunction to stop the bond sale...seems to have already happened

davemac1313 is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:46 PM
  #5
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
If you admit it is uncollectable they why would the CoG waste taxpayers money suing the GWI, since you are all about saving taxpayers dollars? The GWI has lost many a case and are still around, so I would say they are not going anywhere win or lose.
Because when someone asks you if "you wanna go" you drop your gloves and get the first punch in. That is why I would go after the GWI, even if I couldn't collect on the judgment.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:49 PM
  #6
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,582
vCash: 500
So the question is:

In the eyes of the law, can the GWI legally sue an entity over a business transaction that has not yet been completed?

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:50 PM
  #7
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Davemac1313 - The bonds will sell. The interest rate will be higher than necessary. The deal will close unless the GWI can somehow get a court to injoin the sale. What the GWI is doing is playing chicken, and for their part, they are not protecting the taxpayer. They are just driving up the cost of the bond.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:50 PM
  #8
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes
Let me ask you, after the thousands of recent posts, and the hundreds of pages of documents we have all reviewed in our spare time, do you really believe that the GWI lacks the information necessary to determine whether this transaction is unconstitutional?
Where's the other $97 mil coming from?

David_99 is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:54 PM
  #9
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 13,598
vCash: 500
McCown was talking to Sunnucks on The Fan 590.

According to McCown's sources, the interest rate is 8%. Sunnucks thinks it will be between 8-9%.

Both agree that there is a deadline within a matter of days.

WJG is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:54 PM
  #10
goalie311
Registered User
 
goalie311's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Yes. I do question their intent. It seems they have reached some conclusion about the legality of the transaction, yet they aren't going to act upon it and plan to allow the bonds to be sold at an interest rate the will harm the taxpayer. It seems the GWI is playing games here.
You have got to be kidding.

The GWI is playing games? The only 'game' they are playing is the one the COG started, when they continuely denied and re-buffed their requests for documentation.
Tell us, what has GWI done to initiate ANY delays in this whole process?

They've been asking for info the whole time - they're not the ones making it up as they go.

goalie311 is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:55 PM
  #11
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Yes. I do question their intent. It seems they have reached some conclusion about the legality of the transaction, yet they aren't going to act upon it and plan to allow the bonds to be sold at an interest rate the will harm the taxpayer. It seems the GWI is playing games here.
I must admit, I am getting a dizzy feeling in the ole noggeroony with the amount of times I see this being stated.

I had posted previously, but I think it went out with the bathwater, so I will re-submit my question...

Since GW started sniff around this deal, it had not only been the thought of our esteemed posters from HFBoards, but from people within the COG that had such opinions of the GWI

Sabre-rattlers
PR Croneys
Nussances that have no actual teeth
Too pre-occupied with Obama care to have any real opinion on the Coyotes
etc, etc.

Now in the last week we have the NHL/MH/COG united statements that the GWI is of concern, and could potentially de-rail the deal. Why now? Thoughts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
As an aside, since the boards crashed a few times today...

HF smashed to utter smithereens all previous 'number of users currently online' record. We broke our old record mid-month, and then smashed that one by a factor of 3x today.
Congrats Better results than TSN's Tradecentre

AllByDesign is online now  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:55 PM
  #12
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemac1313 View Post
thanks, no expert here on any bonds, certainly not muni bonds etc, appreciate the "dumbed down" version for us lay people. So if I understand what you are saying, the bond offering was at 6.8? initially and that now it must be much higher if the MH comment says it is 100 million more or is the 100 the difference between best case 5% and whatever they are at now?
I suppose you could say it was set at 6.8%. It might be better to say that's their asking price. I don't think the best case is a whole lot lower than that, but it could be.

The comments from MH seem to indicate that 6.8% is already a bit too high, but that he thinks the bonds are probably going to go for more than that based on the current market (based on the Illinois issue I have a tough time believing it could a lot lower than 6.8% but perhaps there could be some room). In order for the difference to be $100 million though the difference between the [GWI does not sue] interest rate and the [GWI does sue] interest rate is somewhere around 4% or more. I just picked 5% as a base and figured out what it would have to be to get to the additional $100 million.

To increase the interest cost of $173 million that's shown in the bond offering by $100 million, the interest rate would have to go from 6.8% to around 11%.

As I mentioned, each bond will have a different interest rate depending on when it matures. Every interest rate above is really just an average interest rate.

The city could also save significant interest costs by paying down the debt earlier. This reduces the principal outstanding upon which the interest is determined and also would decrease the interest rate on the debt. They could easily save $40 million just on having less debt outstanding. If that also reduced the average interest rate by 0.5% they could save over $60 million. Not to sound inflammatory, but their bond offering resembles some of the higher risk mortgages that were underwritten a few years ago.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:57 PM
  #13
davemac1313
Registered User
 
davemac1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Keewatin, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Davemac1313 - The bonds will sell. The interest rate will be higher than necessary. The deal will close unless the GWI can somehow get a court to injoin the sale. What the GWI is doing is playing chicken, and for their part, they are not protecting the taxpayer. They are just driving up the cost of the bond.
They haven't sold as yet, despite many assurances they would be offered previously. Do you think that COG could be leery of the increased cost due to a higher rate and is hesitant to commit? They have to see the higher rate makes this tougher for them to show they get more than they give? Yes?

davemac1313 is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 03:59 PM
  #14
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitbulI View Post
I'll be honest. Like many Winnipeggers who want the NHL back, we don't care about the taxpayers in Glendale. Since the Coyotes fans are now attacking us, I thought I'd clear the air with that. We point out issues with the lease and deal to wonder how on earth anyone could make a deal in which the COG is doing.

MH doesn't care about the Coyotes. If he did, he'd get some people together and put more than 70 million into the team. At least pay for the whole team and take the management fee to pay for the losses which he is doing.

As for the bankruptcy thing. I received an email reply from Leiberman (I know, he's anti deal) but he stated that the way MH has it setup, technically the company which will own the Coyotes can go bankrupt at any time he chooses. Peak6 nor MH is the owner but a company name created.
I don't think anyone thought otherwise. I think everyone is on the defense here so if you are being attacked or feeling so, so be it. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things either way.

I do feel this will all be wrapped up this week.

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:05 PM
  #15
RAgIn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gollybass View Post
Seems like their intent is to cost the Glendale taxpayer further money
I highly doubt that. GWI's motivation/obligation is to try to get the best possible deal for Glendale and its taxpayers. Litigation might be a way for them achieve this goal. We'll see.

Obviously, the way this deal has been manufactured isn't ideal. In fact, it doesn't look good at all. Im just happy I'm not a Glendale taxpayer. However, there is no other suitable owner that can be found. Hasn't been for over 3 plus years. Its apparent that its Hulsizer's ****** deal or relocation. If Hulsizer truly really believed in the Phoenix/Glendale market, he could've payed the whole thing himself (group) up-front. But obviously, he needs subsidies and cash up-front to accept this deal. It sad, really.

RAgIn is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:08 PM
  #16
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
"The bonds have not yet been offered."

Good god.

What the **** are these people doing?
According to one report, JPM was putting the bonds out for subscription, which is different than offering. Subscription is to gauge interest in the bonds. IF it is taking this long, must not be a lot of interest in the bonds.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:15 PM
  #17
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
So the question is:

In the eyes of the law, can the GWI legally sue an entity over a business transaction that has not yet been completed?
And the answer is .... yes. Without a doubt, if the sale would be illegal and/or unconstitutional .... yes. In fact, suit should be brought before the harm, illegal activity/unconstitutional transaction occurrs.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:18 PM
  #18
vivianmb
Registered User
 
vivianmb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,883
vCash: 500
upshall traded to columbus. coincidence?

vivianmb is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:19 PM
  #19
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
To increase the interest cost of $173 million that's shown in the bond offering by $100 million, the interest rate would have to go from 6.8% to around 11%.
Yeah, my math came up with similiar same rate. Seems either MH is trying to blow smoke up our *** about the "extra $100M", or its true and the offering came in DOA.

 
Old
02-28-2011, 04:21 PM
  #20
AllByDesign
Who's this ABD guy??
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Because when someone asks you if "you wanna go" you drop your gloves and get the first punch in. That is why I would go after the GWI, even if I couldn't collect on the judgment.
An interesting analogy coming from someone who practices law. I've generally found lawyers tempering their options and choosing the path of least resistance in acheiving their end results.

If I took your analogy in fighting Derek Boogard I would get one punch in... of course I would have my room pre-booked in intensive care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
According to one report, JPM was putting the bonds out for subscription, which is different than offering. Subscription is to gauge interest in the bonds. IF it is taking this long, must not be a lot of interest in the bonds.
The JPM offering did state that there was a minimum pre-order in order to determine full release of the bonds. There are so many mixed messages that it is difficult to determine if the bonds won't or can't be issued. Depends on who you ask I suppose.

AllByDesign is online now  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:21 PM
  #21
ATHF
Go Jets Go!
 
ATHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
According to one report, JPM was putting the bonds out for subscription, which is different than offering. Subscription is to gauge interest in the bonds. IF it is taking this long, must not be a lot of interest in the bonds.
It's become fairly clear that the COG actually selling the bonds is a bit of a hail mary as investors are staying away for a variety of reasons. I think the more interesting factor is that rather than the COG just admitting that their end around didn't work and that their deal won't work as is, they're trying to pass the buck to blame the GWI as if the GWI is the only reason why people don't want to buy. The interest rate and the reports from all of the reputable sources of bond information like Moody's go hand in hand.

If anything, GWI will probably end up saving the COG some money as they won't have to pay back nearly half a billion dollars in interest and principle. In fact, if the bonds sell at 9%, it will actually cost the COG more than their "worst case scenario" of the arena getting boarded up while they move the entire COG five miles down the road.

ATHF is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:22 PM
  #22
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemac1313 View Post
They haven't sold as yet, despite many assurances they would be offered previously. Do you think that COG could be leery of the increased cost due to a higher rate and is hesitant to commit? They have to see the higher rate makes this tougher for them to show they get more than they give? Yes?
I think the council authorized a sale of the bonds and the City ordinance allows up to 9%. I'm sure the CoG will try and get the best rate they can, which is why there is so much out there now about the GWI needing to back off. As to the higher interest rate going to a gift, I don't think the GWI can make that claim given they would be at least one of the greatest factors in why the bonds sold at a higher rate. I'm sure the CoG would bring in experts that the GWI would have a hard time rebutting that would testify that the cloud of the GWI's litigation threat was the factor in raising the interest rate.

Having said that, I'm not completely sure that a court will not take into consideration the interest rate when looking at whether what the City was paying was grossly disproportionate the what direct benefits it was receiving.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:23 PM
  #23
Brodie
to the hall
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivianmb View Post
upshall traded to columbus. coincidence?
hahaha really? TNSE is controlling the team

Brodie is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:26 PM
  #24
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
An interesting analogy coming from someone who practices law. I've generally found lawyers tempering their options and choosing the path of least resistance in acheiving their end results.

If I took your analogy in fighting Derek Boogard I would get one punch in... of course I would have my room pre-booked in intensive care.



The JPM offering did state that there was a minimum pre-order in order to determine full release of the bonds. There are so many mixed messages that it is difficult to determine if the bonds won't or can't be issued. Depends on who you ask I suppose.
As a litigator, you learn when to fight and when not to. This would certainly be one of those scorched earth campaigns.

The GWI is not Derek Boogard. The CoG has the real heavy weight firms on its side as bond counsel and counsel rendering an opinion on the legality of the transaction. I would put the Snell and Fennemore lawyers up against the GWI any day. That would really be Boogard punching my lights out.

Everyone needs to realize the GWI in not the ACLU. They're not a bunch of dummies, but they really are being viewed more as a problem or obstacle than a formidable foe.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-28-2011, 04:29 PM
  #25
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500


In March 2011
an entire city council disappeared
in the town of Glendale, Arizona
while trying to save a hockey team......

A year later their footage was found in Winnipeg.


Bond: the Phoenix Project

Acesolid 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 07:02 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.