HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix Part XXXI: I feel I'm in a time loop

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2011, 12:02 PM
  #51
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Just an Fyi... The Scottsdale Mayor has very, very close ties to the GWI. In fact, his campaign person has worked for the GWI and his former chief of staff went to work for the Rose law firm. So, I'm not too surprised he would come out against the CoG's deal with MH, and indirectly prop up the GWI.
Regardless of what thinks about the substance of the deal, I thought it was uncharitable to get publicly embroiled in the politics of Glendale on this. Perhaps his political leanings, along with some competitiveness between municipalities explains it.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:04 PM
  #52
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,601
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Iagree with Mayor Jim Lane's commentsd to the effect that it's not fair to expect Glendale, having already financed the areana to take on this much additional debt in connection with the Coyotes. Seriouly, I am interested in GSC's (hopefully abbreviated) views as to why Hulsizer doesn't leave Glendale out of.the equation and merely finance the net present value of the parking revenues etc etc himself? He understands finance and has his own access to capital markets.

My apologies to CSG; I'm sure you've gone over this before but I'm not able to follow all the posts, and I just don't get it in any event.

Mork is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:15 PM
  #53
ICdave
HFB Partner
 
ICdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,200
vCash: 500
Everything you did or didn’t want to know about those involved in the Coyotes drama.

Since it appears no news is happening in the past couple of days, put together a comprehensive list of those involved in the Coyotes drama.

Feel free to let me know if I've made any mistakes or left anyone important off the list.

ICdave is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:21 PM
  #54
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
Iagree with Mayor Jim Lane's commentsd to the effect that it's not fair to expect Glendale, having already financed the areana to take on this much additional debt in connection with the Coyotes. Seriouly, I am interested in GSC's (hopefully abbreviated) views as to why Hulsizer doesn't leave Glendale out of.the equation and merely finance the net present value of the parking revenues etc etc himself? He understands finance and has his own access to capital markets.

My apologies to CSG; I'm sure you've gone over this before but I'm not able to follow all the posts, and I just don't get it in any event.
According to Clint Bolick (Goldwater Institute), it is the lending of credit and the assumption of risk by taxpayers that is one of the principal objections by the GWI to the Hulsizer deal. In fact, he has noted that this is precisely why the "gift clause" was originally drafted, because at the time railroad companies had the habit of coming to governments to finance railroad construction by selling bonds backed by taxpayers. Many of these railroad companies went bankrupt, leaving the governments and taxpayers on the hook to pay bond-holders. He noted that the GWI sees a direct parallel with this deal, and believe that the assumption of risk by Glendale to benefit a private business is specifically prohibited by the "gift clause".

I gather he was referring to this:

Quote:
7. Gift or loan of credit; subsidies; stock ownership; joint ownership
Section 7. Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:29 PM
  #55
TheWestWing
Registered User
 
TheWestWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Valley of the Sun
Posts: 297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
“Listen, lad. I built this thread up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a thread on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a IInd one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a IIIrd one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the IVth one...

So I built an XXXth thread. That one is pining for the fjords. No. 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! That thread is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THAT IS AN EX-THREAD!!
If I may mix some MP metaphors (if they even are such):

'I'm not dead yet. I'm getting better...'

TheWestWing is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:36 PM
  #56
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,601
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
I get the gift clause POV, Whilleee, along with the possibility that the Glendale agreement may or may not offend the gift clause, which would be an unsettled issue until decided by a court of law.

What I'm missing, and I'm trying to get an informed respnse without being rude, argumentative or going off-topic, is if the bundle of rights that Glendale is buying is worth roughly what they're offering, why doesn't Hulsizer break the logjam by keeping those rights and financing them himself, or just selling them at a similar price to a private-market actor? On my bb while waiting at court. Forgive the many typos.

Mork is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:39 PM
  #57
RAgIn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Dreger Report: March 28, 2001

Quote:
As it's the beginning of the week, The Dreger Report will provide a status update on the sale of Phoenix Coyotes to Matt Hulsizer, although all involved, including the incredibly patient group awaiting word in Winnipeg, say there's no indication the deal will close or be scuttled this week.

Sources say as far as the sale of the bonds to complete the transaction are concerned, things continue to percolate and the league at this point is not considering pulling the plug.

Last Wednesday, Goldwater Institute reached out to Hulsizer seeking clarification on his most recent proposal.

Hulsizer's response included specific details on the payment schedule and proposed guarantees and while sources say Goldwater acknowledged the positive changes to the structure of the deal, it still has concerns.

Unless a new development arises, we'll do our best to keep the focus on the Coyotes march into the postseason and away from the organization's fight for survival.
Don't expect anything to transpire this week. Huurah.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/

RAgIn is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:40 PM
  #58
EventHorizon
Bring Back Ties!
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Budd Lake, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WpgMikos View Post
Since it appears no news is happening in the past couple of days, put together a comprehensive list of those involved in the Coyotes drama.

Feel free to let me know if I've made any mistakes or left anyone important off the list.
Thank you for that. I've been looking for a summary of this for awhile. 30 threads. I can't believe it. This is like the HFBoards' version of War and Peace.

EventHorizon is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:41 PM
  #59
RAgIn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I like this side of you.

Merci!




The total issue (amount of money that comes back to CoG), or the total principle value of the bonds sold. Interest not to exceed 9%, so it cannot be 9.1 or 9.087, etc. 9.0% or less and they don't need to get council approval.

The total debt will depend on which interest rate is applied. 6% would result in roughly $100m less in debt repayment than 9% (rough figures). Othmar likes doing the actual calcs.
Thanks. Othmar, do your best

RAgIn is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:44 PM
  #60
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
According to Clint Bolick (Goldwater Institute), it is the lending of credit and the assumption of risk by taxpayers that is one of the principal objections by the GWI to the Hulsizer deal. In fact, he has noted that this is precisely why the "gift clause" was originally drafted, because at the time railroad companies had the habit of coming to governments to finance railroad construction by selling bonds backed by taxpayers. Many of these railroad companies went bankrupt, leaving the governments and taxpayers on the hook to pay bond-holders. He noted that the GWI sees a direct parallel with this deal, and believe that the assumption of risk by Glendale to benefit a private business is specifically prohibited by the "gift clause".

I gather he was referring to this:
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale... it's not lending credit. It's purchasing an asset, is it not?. I don't see any correlation between that and the clause you cited Whileee.

[BTW... I know GWI's position the city owns those rights.... but to date they haven't said anything other than they "believe" that.]

CF?? GSC?? Please feel free to correct me if I'm off about this.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:45 PM
  #61
PerryMiller
Registered User
 
PerryMiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
I get the gift clause POV, Whilleee, along with the possibility that the Glendale agreement may or may not offend the gift clause, which would be an unsettled issue until decided by a court of law.

What I'm missing, and I'm trying to get an informed respnse without being rude, argumentative or going off-topic, is if the bundle of rights that Glendale is buying is worth roughly what they're offering, why doesn't Hulsizer break the logjam by keeping those rights and financing them himself, or just selling them at a similar price to a private-market actor? On my bb while waiting at court. Forgive the many typos.
Simple IMO. If MH finances this himself, he's on the hook. If Glendale finances, then he can always walk away if/when his "tweeks" prove to be ineffective. Some people will say he can't walk away, but business doesn't work like that. He has the right to bankrupt his company any time he pleases while keeping his other assets safe and sound. GWI knows this.

PerryMiller is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:47 PM
  #62
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
I get the gift clause POV, Whilleee, along with the possibility that the Glendale agreement may or may not offend the gift clause, which would be an unsettled issue until decided by a court of law.

What I'm missing, and I'm trying to get an informed respnse without being rude, argumentative or going off-topic, is if the bundle of rights that Glendale is buying is worth roughly what they're offering, why doesn't Hulsizer break the logjam by keeping those rights and financing them himself, or just selling them at a similar price to a private-market actor? On my bb while waiting at court. Forgive the many typos.
I think those are excellent questions, that have not been answered to the satisfaction of many, including the Goldwater Institute.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:49 PM
  #63
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAgIn View Post
Don't expect anything to transpire this week. Huurah.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/
Might be time to shut this thread down for a week or two, until some news actually occurs, so we can get back to out lives. Then again, we might miss the every couple of days of the CoG and GWI

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 12:52 PM
  #64
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale... it's not lending credit. It's purchasing an asset, is it not?. I don't see any correlation between that and the clause you cited Whileee.

[BTW... I know GWI's position the city owns those rights.... but to date they haven't said anything other than they "believe" that.]

CF?? GSC?? Please feel free to correct me if I'm off about this.
It is not me that needs to be convinced, but the Goldwater Institute. Obviously, it is their legal opinion that this violates the gift clause, with the lending of credit as one of their objections. If they are wrong, then all the City of Glendale needs to do is take it to court, get a declarative judgment, and away they go. Any thoughts about why Glendale has not pursued that path, given that they claim that they will lose $500 million if this deal doesn't proceed? A series of rather unpersuasive PR ploys don't seem to match their stated confidence in their legal standing or the stated economic stakes, in my opinion.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:06 PM
  #65
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
...if the bundle of rights that Glendale is buying is worth roughly what they're offering, why doesn't Hulsizer break the logjam by keeping those rights and financing them himself, or just selling them at a similar price to a private-market actor?
That has been, and remains, a pretty fundamental question.

As long as the situation is such that Hulsizer won't do this, there is an implied "gift" somewhere in the transaction.

Either that, or the guy just flat out can't afford it, which brings its own unfortunate issues to the table.

 
Old
03-28-2011, 01:09 PM
  #66
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAgIn View Post
Don't expect anything to transpire this week. Huurah.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/
Quote:
although all involved, including the incredibly patient group awaiting word in Winnipeg, say there's no indication the deal will close or be scuttled this week.
Does anyone else find it highly doubtful that "the incredibly patient group awaiting word in Winnipeg" said anything about whether the deal will close or be scuttled this week? I expect he would have received nothing more than a polite "no comment", like every other reporter has.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:10 PM
  #67
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale... it's not lending credit. It's purchasing an asset, is it not?. I don't see any correlation between that and the clause you cited Whileee.

[BTW... I know GWI's position the city owns those rights.... but to date they haven't said anything other than they "believe" that.]

CF?? GSC?? Please feel free to correct me if I'm off about this.
From what I have read about the gift clause and this situation is that the original intent of the clause was to prevent the use of the city's money/credit (to leave the source of funds out of the equation as most seem to want to do around these parts) to fund a private endeavour (exposing the taxpayers to risk). The intent is to have private business keep the risk and not leave the taxpayers holding the bag paying back the bond (credit) or losing the investment (if city money (savings) had been used).

In this case the parking rights are being argued as being a "product" being sold to the city to keep the gift clause from applying to the transaction. Whether you accept this or not as being proper this still would leave the taxpayers at great risk if the team leaves in the future as the parking revenues would collapse unless the dates could be otherwise filled and the same parking rate charged (assuming you accept that the revenue projections for parking are not bogus to start with).

If the parking were taken out of the transaction it looks pretty cut and dried, but even with the parking in the original intent of the gift clause looks like it is being violated even IF the black and white language may or may not be (this has never been determined since CoG looks to be petrified about having this determined (if they lose on this it affects MANY more governments and transactions and they may end up screwing up a good chunk of public/private works over what in the end may look to be a small peice of business)).

That other work that may get messed up may be IMO what is freezing up the transaction (in addition to this making NO business sense at 8%+ on the bonds).

Mungman is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:13 PM
  #68
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale...
Then let the CoG buy the rights directly from the NHL, and separate the NHL-Hulsizer-CoG triumvirate into something more easily digestable.

IF the intent is to have a clean transaction, there are a million ways to do this, none of which are being pursued.

 
Old
03-28-2011, 01:14 PM
  #69
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,601
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale... it's not lending credit. It's purchasing an asset, is it not?. I don't see any correlation between that and the clause you cited Whileee.

[BTW... I know GWI's position the city owns those rights.... but to date they haven't said anything other than they "believe" that.]

CF?? GSC?? Please feel free to correct me if I'm off about this.
I understand that POV, Legend, and neither agree nor disagree with it. Assuming that it is correct but the deal still won't work because legal action to clear the air is just not practical, why would Hulsizer not go to a Plan "B" along the lines I asked about a few posts ago?

Mork is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:14 PM
  #70
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
Iagree with Mayor Jim Lane's commentsd to the effect that it's not fair to expect Glendale, having already financed the areana to take on this much additional debt in connection with the Coyotes. Seriouly, I am interested in GSC's (hopefully abbreviated) views as to why Hulsizer doesn't leave Glendale out of.the equation and merely finance the net present value of the parking revenues etc etc himself? He understands finance and has his own access to capital markets.

My apologies to CSG; I'm sure you've gone over this before but I'm not able to follow all the posts, and I just don't get it in any event.
Hulsizer is selling these rights for the sme reason any seller sells anything - he wants to miinimize is risk (and opportunity) by locing in the value. He has acquired the team and these rights for $170M. He is selling a piece of what he's buying. If/when he decides to sell the franchise, it will be worth considerably less, because he will have no high-margin parking revenue stream available to sell with the team.

Given that he is committing to stay for 30 years, he is hedging his investment. There is nothing in violation of the Gift Clause in his doing so. He is giving up 30 years of parkign revenues in order to hedge that investment.

The value of the parking assets is worth more to the COG than it is to any other party, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that the parking rights are not exclusive. Ellman (the Westgate developer) also has certain rights in connection with his development at non-event times/dates. COG derives value from Ellman also having those non-event rights (which is why they gave them to him way back in 2003). COG already has agreements in place (from 2003-2006) addressing those non-event parking rights. Any third party would have to negotiate their own deal with Ellman, and (since they do not benefit from Ellman like COG does) would probably want compensation for the use of their parking rights (to offset O&M costs, for example).

Any third-party financier would also have these issues with the ability of Ellman to use the lots. It could likely be done, but it would be a less valuable asset. In short, the parking rights are more valuable to the COG than anyone else.

That is the really short version. There is more, if you want it.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:25 PM
  #71
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,117
vCash: 500
The last line in that quote by Dreger irks me..."we'll do our best to keep the focus on the Coyotes march into the postseason and away from the organization's fight for survival. "

Huh? It's news and Dreger plus the rest of TSN are reporters...yeesh.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:25 PM
  #72
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
But if Glendale is buying parking rights with the procedes from the bonds sale... it's not lending credit. It's purchasing an asset, is it not?. I don't see any correlation between that and the clause you cited Whileee.

[BTW... I know GWI's position the city owns those rights.... but to date they haven't said anything other than they "believe" that.]

CF?? GSC?? Please feel free to correct me if I'm off about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That has been, and remains, a pretty fundamental question.

As long as the situation is such that Hulsizer won't do this, there is an implied "gift" somewhere in the transaction.

Either that, or the guy just flat out can't afford it, which brings its own unfortunate issues to the table.
I am no lawyer, but I am not so sure that it is as cut and dried as Glendale purchasing something that is not "roughly proportionate" in value.

The point is that there is an asset that Hulsizer wants the City of Glendale to monetize as part of an overall lease agreement with the City of Glendale. So this is not as simple as the City of Glendale just deciding to purchase an asset, but part of a larger agreement that binds the two parties together, and directly facilitates the purchase of an NHL franchise by Hulsizer.

Now, the question is, if the asset is worth the $100 million, then why wouldn't Hulsizer keep it himself, or monetize it privately? The answer is likely that he either does not himself like the risk, nor does he believe that private investors or banks are willing to take on the risk of the $100 million investment. This was very clearly articulated in IEH's first failed MOU, wherein their bank insisted that the CFD parking revenues be backed by the City of Glendale. So, instead of Hulsizer or another private investor assuming the risk and / or lending their credit, the City of Glendale is being forced to do so. So, even if the parking rights are nominally worth $100 million, there is still the issue about who is lending the credit and thereby incurring the risk, in case the parking revenues do not meet expectations or some other financial calamity occurs. To bring back the motivating examples of the railway companies, I gather that the argument wasn't simply that the railways would not have been worth the amount that governments were backing had they succeeded, but rather that when financial calamity ensued it was the government and taxpayers holding the bag.

So, it seems to me that there remain two issues, which are not entirely linked. The first is whether Glendale is paying too high a price for the parking rights. The second is whether the entirety of this agreement with Hulsizer, a central portion of which compels Glendale to use their credit to monetize the parking rights and thereby assume the financial risk.

On to the lawyers for refutation and / or discussion.

Whileee is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:27 PM
  #73
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
From what I have read about the gift clause and this situation is that the original intent of the clause was to prevent the use of the city's money/credit (to leave the source of funds out of the equation as most seem to want to do around these parts) to fund a private endeavour (exposing the taxpayers to risk). The intent is to have private business keep the risk and not leave the taxpayers holding the bag paying back the bond (credit) or losing the investment (if city money (savings) had been used).
Under GWI's view, the COG cannot take any risk, since they should not be undertaking any type of business. That POV is not supported by the AZ Constitution, but that is still their particular pespective.

Quote:
In this case the parking rights are being argued as being a "product" being sold to the city to keep the gift clause from applying to the transaction. Whether you accept this or not as being proper this still would leave the taxpayers at great risk if the team leaves in the future as the parking revenues would collapse unless the dates could be otherwise filled and the same parking rate charged (assuming you accept that the revenue projections for parking are not bogus to start with).
It is highly likely that the parking revenues would collapse if the team left. The COG has addressed this, however, by:

- requiring that MH commit to a 30 year term and agree to a non-relocation covenant, separate and apart from the lease; and

- providing that if the team breaches the covenant (bankruptcy being pretty much the only way), the team pays a liquidated damages amount of >$200M (I forget the actual $ amount). The proceeds of any franchise sale would be used to pay that claim.


Quote:
If the parking were taken out of the transaction it looks pretty cut and dried, but even with the parking in the original intent of the gift clause looks like it is being violated even IF the black and white language may or may not be (this has never been determined since CoG looks to be petrified about having this determined (if they lose on this it affects MANY more governments and transactions and they may end up screwing up a good chunk of public/private works over what in the end may look to be a small peice of business)).
It is only speculation to suggest that the COG is "petrified", but its potentially broad-ranging impact is undoubtedly an issue.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:27 PM
  #74
PerryMiller
Registered User
 
PerryMiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Given that he is committing to stay for 30 years, he is hedging his investment. There is nothing in violation of the Gift Clause in his doing so. He is giving up 30 years of parkign revenues in order to hedge that investment.
Reality check time ! Committing for 30 years is an illusion. Might as well commit for a million years. Hulsizer won't probably live for another 30 years. He's committed until he decides he wants out. He'll leave any investments behind, which will be minimal.

PerryMiller is offline  
Old
03-28-2011, 01:28 PM
  #75
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,798
vCash: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAgIn View Post
Don't expect anything to transpire this week. Huurah.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/
Dreger is also the guy that was continually tweeting late last year (through much of 2011 to date as well) that the deal would close within a few weeks, Using that as guide, I expect something to transpire this week.

Gump Hasek 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 09:10 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.