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 Part XXXII: Bridge over Troubled Goldwater

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-07-2011, 05:40 PM
  #251
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
False.

There is nothing in the deal structure which increases risk. You might have something if the deal was structured such that investors only had recourse to parking revenues, but as you know that is not the case. The bonds are backed by excise taxes as well.
So what is the problem for the potential bond buyers? If GWI is correct the sale of the bonds can't be reversed even if the team leaves. I don't see how GW's objection interferes with the bonds selling.

Confucius is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 05:41 PM
  #252
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
False.

There is nothing in the deal structure which increases risk. You might have something if the deal was structured such that investors only had recourse to parking revenues, but as you know that is not the case. The bonds are backed by excise taxes as well.
Are you truthfully claiming that a deal proposed as I've outlined is not riskier than a similar plain vanilla muni deal? If so, I'm guessing that your own broker operates from within a janitorial closet.

Quote:
As you also might know if you have read the bond materials, the COG's debt coverage ratio is approximately 4.5 to 1, which is an outstanding number (well, i don't know if you would know the latter part, but now you do).
Are you claiming that Glendale's debt is not well above the mean?

Quote:
This is a red herring. If you are in fact a bond trader, you know very well that there is risk and then there is the perception of risk. Perception of risk is exascerbated in a tight bond market, as you (should) very well know.

In regards to your requests for a link, you know very well that the underwriter has not publicly stated any such thing, nor would an underwriter ever publicly state any such thing. It would be beyond irregular (and likely in breach of their legal duties) to do so. What we have is a clear enough interest rate market range for A2-level credits, versus what has been reported to be the range for this transaction.
The other poster stated the underwriter made that claim, not I.

Quote:
As you (should) ALSO know, the debt levels of COG (or indeed ANY issuer) are already reflected in the rating issued by the credit agencies. It was for debt level reasons that COG was taken down from an A1 to an A2. Yet you (seemingly disingenuously) suggest that debt levels are then FURTHER taken into account in adding what is reportedly hundreds of basis points to the debt issue.

We both know that is not the case. Only one of us is apparently prepared to acknowledge it.
I'm well aware of this. I'm also aware that the market has given a negative tip of the hat to this deal upon Moody's downgrade of all of Glendale's other debt, given that it increases the likelihood of default.

Thanks for the presumed educational offering though.

I am editing this to add that I'm a commodities trader; I only rarely trade bonds, and especially not munis because the risk generally isn't there in most cases - in that market segment. I've not read all of the related materials and do not wish to engage to a protracted battle with a pedantic lawyer over something I've little interest in. As such, you are welcome to your assumptions. Good luck and do carry as if I don't care.


Last edited by Gump Hasek: 04-07-2011 at 05:49 PM.
Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 05:42 PM
  #253
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
PS: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Are you aware that Moody's downgraded all of Glendale's other debt upon the prospect of this issuance? Why do you think that happened? A hint would be that an already overextended city is increasing its debtload, leading to increased likelihood of default. That was all done ex-GWI lifting a finger, FYI.

What time will you be putting on the monkey show?
Are you saying the interest rate differential is due to the downgrade, yet Moody rated this issuance at A1? Please??? I could see a percentage basis, but 2 or 3 points. Look at Illinois issuance and the interest rate those bonds sold at. Come on!

goyotes is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 05:47 PM
  #254
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,688
vCash: 500
This is not an OT thread.

This is not the Lounge.

Either discuss the topic at hand (the Coyotes) or don't post at all here. Don't talk about each other, your cars, what you had for breakfast, or the length and volume of your after-lunch belch.

The next deletion will be accompanied by an infraction, a threadban, and possibly a forum ban. Some of you have made this thread unreadable before I deleted half of it.

Anybody coming into this thread to find out the latest news on PHX would have had to wage through pages of OT crap and flaming and that stops now.

Final warning.

Timmy is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 05:53 PM
  #255
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
I'm a few topics behind but have to call out the bolded statement. A few threads back there were posters who analyzed the Hocking study and found flaws in the estimates. The two that I recall are, 1) the failure to use historical data in creating the estimates; and 2) using a flawed percentage of future variance (I'm sure I'm not stating that correctly, but hopefully you get the idea).

Maybe someone who is more tech savvy than me can find these posts.

The fact that you don't agree that the estimates are faulty is a far cry different from "no one on these boards" presenting "any type of argument" that the parking values are inflated. This is the type of generalization that you often decry, for good reason.

I'd also like to hear your rationale as to why the assumptions were "extremely conservative." That position seems a bit . . . . extreme.
You considered those "arguments"?

The first one consisted of a simple statement as to whether the consultants considered historical data. You seem to have missed the fact that such statement was offered as a joke. The poster in question was clearly pointing out the fact that (with the exception of valet parking) the previous Coyotes owners did not charge for parking. I took it as a joke (albeit a meanspirited one directed at Coyotes fans, as so many are here), and duly ignored it.

The second one that you reference above is presumably the discussion that we had regarding the appropriate discount rate. That issue was debated in full, and once all interested and educated parties had weighed in, the verdict was that the discount rate was not some wildly inflated number as had been proposed by a poster, who was comparing apples to oranges. Even at that, THAT "argument" did not even get to the meat of the parking values, which were the projections.

As to your final point, you will have to be a little clearer. Why is it "... extreme"? Because a bunch of HF posters have decided that there really is no money in parking, and created a bit of conventional wisdom on these boards that is positively ridiculous to anyone in that business? Read the report. There are no flights of fancy. The per-car ratios are higher than the standard 2.5. There are higher-than-normal estimates for operating costs. There is a conservative ramp-up in attendance. The eventual steady-state attendance projections are within the attendance levels previously achieved by PHO in recent years for much poorer teams. There is no projected revenue included for playoff games. There is no projected revenue included for signage or sponsorships. I could go on, but i am betting you get the idea.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 05:59 PM
  #256
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
A base understanding of bond rates dictates that rates increase relative to deal risk.
As we know, Moodys' rated these A1, the 5th highest rating on their scales, not great but not too shabby all things considered. According to Todd Curtis (quoted in AzCentral in February) of Aquila Tax Free Trust of Arizona; "Thats much better than I thought it would be. Its very, very good. As an Arizona resident Im glad to see it". Contemporaneously, the state itself had its credit rating dropped (sales tax issues etc) along with several other muni's. Im not worried about Glendales ability to service the debts, this they can do, however, they wont be able to do it from the parking revenues & ticket surcharges exclusively AND continue to service the arena debt (and others) without using general funds IMO, which could well be the match that lights the fuse.....

Killion is online now  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:04 PM
  #257
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 8,940
vCash: 500
Let's say for the sake of aurgument that the GWI's threat of litigation and the warning they sent out caused the interest rates on the bonds to be sold, to go up, and hence the cost of bonding. So?

Unless the CoG is totally out to lunch ( which it does appear to be some days ) they HAD to of known that this would happen, or at the very least known it could happen. So why were they not prepared for this eventuality, and had a plan "B" to buy the parking from Hulsizer by some other means or get Hulsizer the money by some other method? Either the CoG got some bad advice from thier lawyers ( " Hey, its just the GWI, don't worry about it " ) or the CoG decided to ignore it. Regardless, they are in this situation because they put themselves in this situation.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:09 PM
  #258
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Are you truthfully claiming that a deal proposed as I've outlined is not riskier than a similar plain vanilla muni deal? If so, I'm guessing that your own broker operates from within a janitorial closet.
Even if the deal were as you suggested, then no, it's not riskier. It is covered by the same excise taxes that a sewer deal would be covered by.

I will pass on your best wishes to my broker in her broom closet.

Quote:
Are you claiming that Glendale's debt is not well above the mean?
Since i did not take issue with your statement, you can assume that i am not disputing it. What I am saying is that you and i both know that fact was already taken into account in reducing COG to an A2 credit. The ratings agency (Moody's IIRC?) expressly stated that in their release.

Quote:
The other poster stated the underwriter made that claim, not I.
I know. I didn't say that you did. I am saying that you asked for something which you already know does not exist.

Quote:
I'm well aware of this. I'm also aware that the market has given a negative tip of the hat to this deal upon Moody's downgrade of all of Glendale's other debt, given that it increases the likelihood of default.
Good, then, if you're aware of all this. It begs the question as to why you would think it is not already factored in throough the rating downgrade, which is not that significant (a few dozen or so basis points at worst). It does increase the likelihood of default as every other ratings decrease does - in this case from extremely unlikely to very highly unlikely.

Quote:
I am editing this to add that I'm a commodities trader; I only rarely trade bonds, and especially not munis because the risk generally isn't there in most cases - in that market segment. I've not read all of the related materials and do not wish to engage to a protracted battle with a pedantic lawyer over something I've little interest in. As such, you are welcome to your assumptions. Good luck and do carry as if I don't care.
Thanks for the clarification. That being said, if you have such little interest, and you wish to challenge another poster so forcefully, you should expect firm-but-polite pushback from those who have read the background materials. "Pedantic" is not applicable to the correction of core issues. If i was correcting your grammar, you'd have a point. Good luck to you also.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:11 PM
  #259
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Let's say for the sake of aurgument that the GWI's threat of litigation and the warning they sent out caused the interest rates on the bonds to be sold, to go up, and hence the cost of bonding. So?

Unless the CoG is totally out to lunch ( which it does appear to be some days ) they HAD to of known that this would happen, or at the very least known it could happen. So why were they not prepared for this eventuality, and had a plan "B" to buy the parking from Hulsizer by some other means or get Hulsizer the money by some other method? Either the CoG got some bad advice from thier lawyers ( " Hey, its just the GWI, don't worry about it " ) or the CoG decided to ignore it. Regardless, they are in this situation because they put themselves in this situation.
Excellent question, and one I am sure has been asked countless times at City Hall recently. Seems the CoG was foolish to include the GWI in the dialouge. They should have done the deal, closed on the bonds, and let the GWI complain afterwords. Perhaps that was not possible.

I don't know what plan B can be since someone has to make up the difference between the value of the franchise in Arizona, and the price the NHL needs to get. MH will not overpay, and the NHL will not lose money. Rock ... meet hard place.

goyotes is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:14 PM
  #260
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
So what is the problem for the potential bond buyers? If GWI is correct the sale of the bonds can't be reversed even if the team leaves. I don't see how GW's objection interferes with the bonds selling.
Perception of risk, combined with a tight bond market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Let's say for the sake of aurgument that the GWI's threat of litigation and the warning they sent out caused the interest rates on the bonds to be sold, to go up, and hence the cost of bonding. So?

Unless the CoG is totally out to lunch ( which it does appear to be some days ) they HAD to of known that this would happen, or at the very least known it could happen. So why were they not prepared for this eventuality, and had a plan "B" to buy the parking from Hulsizer by some other means or get Hulsizer the money by some other method? Either the CoG got some bad advice from thier lawyers ( " Hey, its just the GWI, don't worry about it " ) or the CoG decided to ignore it. Regardless, they are in this situation because they put themselves in this situation.
I am not sure why there is a debate about whether the GWI letter has escalated the interest rate. That seems to be beyond debate. Every single party involved has acknowledged that fact, on multiple occasions, even though it would not be in their interests to do so.'

I don't think people quite understand the level of aggressiveness in the legal tactic of sending out that letter. It is almost a kamikaze mission, and was almost surely a last-ditch effort on GWI's part to stop the train coming down the track at that time.

You might want to consider the possibility that GWI double-crossed COG in their dealings. Hulsizer has reported that Clint Bolick had indicated in December that they seemed okay with the deal. COG may have believed that it truly was so open-and-shut that GWI would not waste their time on this (and despite what some may think, this really is not anything close to a close call in terms of the Gift Clause). COG may have (quite reasonably) thought that GWI had many more pressing litigation irons in the fire, not the least of which was the healthcare challenge. Perhaps they had a naive belief that GWI's litigation shop was actually a litigation shop that held itself to a certain code of conduct befitting officers of the court, instead of a legal tool of hyper-partisanship.


Last edited by GSC2k2*: 04-07-2011 at 06:24 PM.
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:17 PM
  #261
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
You considered those "arguments"?

The first one consisted of a simple statement as to whether the consultants considered historical data. You seem to have missed the fact that such statement was offered as a joke. The poster in question was clearly pointing out the fact that (with the exception of valet parking) the previous Coyotes owners did not charge for parking. I took it as a joke (albeit a meanspirited one directed at Coyotes fans, as so many are here), and duly ignored it.

The second one that you reference above is presumably the discussion that we had regarding the appropriate discount rate. That issue was debated in full, and once all interested and educated parties had weighed in, the verdict was that the discount rate was not some wildly inflated number as had been proposed by a poster, who was comparing apples to oranges. Even at that, THAT "argument" did not even get to the meat of the parking values, which were the projections.

As to your final point, you will have to be a little clearer. Why is it "... extreme"? Because a bunch of HF posters have decided that there really is no money in parking, and created a bit of conventional wisdom on these boards that is positively ridiculous to anyone in that business? Read the report. There are no flights of fancy. The per-car ratios are higher than the standard 2.5. There are higher-than-normal estimates for operating costs. There is a conservative ramp-up in attendance. The eventual steady-state attendance projections are within the attendance levels previously achieved by PHO in recent years for much poorer teams. There is no projected revenue included for playoff games. There is no projected revenue included for signage or sponsorships. I could go on, but i am betting you get the idea.
On the discount rate, as I recall the debate:

Poster criticized the discount rate used inthe study.

You challenged his assumptions, using the "apples to oranges" phrase.

Poster rebutted your assumptions.

It may be that there was more to the debate but I don't recall so. I have been an infrequent contributor but have been reading through this thorougly, but it may be the case that I missed more of this discussion. If not, I would hardly conclude that "all interested and educated parties" weighed in and agreed on this point. Unless you are the only person that you consider to be in that category. (I kid, I kid).

On the last point, I appreciate the clarification. I have no expertise to analyze the numbers, but I do make assumptions based on the history of the parking situation at the rink. This has gone from an albatross that dragged down the prior owner's bottom line, and a right that was left behind in the bankruptcy proceedings, to suddenly becoming the most valuable part of the transaction. As I've posted before, if these assumptions truly were conservative, MH could have sold the parking rights to private investors and avoided the gift clause issue.

Ludwig Fell Down is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:40 PM
  #262
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
On the discount rate, as I recall the debate:

Poster criticized the discount rate used inthe study.

You challenged his assumptions, using the "apples to oranges" phrase.

Poster rebutted your assumptions.

It may be that there was more to the debate but I don't recall so. I have been an infrequent contributor but have been reading through this thorougly, but it may be the case that I missed more of this discussion. If not, I would hardly conclude that "all interested and educated parties" weighed in and agreed on this point. Unless you are the only person that you consider to be in that category. (I kid, I kid).

On the last point, I appreciate the clarification. I have no expertise to analyze the numbers, but I do make assumptions based on the history of the parking situation at the rink. This has gone from an albatross that dragged down the prior owner's bottom line, and a right that was left behind in the bankruptcy proceedings, to suddenly becoming the most valuable part of the transaction. As I've posted before, if these assumptions truly were conservative, MH could have sold the parking rights to private investors and avoided the gift clause issue.
I appreciate that it is easy to miss big chunks of a debate, especialy when there are heated discussions of Shane Doan's kids and Eric Belanger to be had. I missed part of the debate myself, in fact

Actually, the debate was taken up in my absense by several other posters, each of whom have made many valuable business discussion contributions here. They wound up making the case that i was not around at the time to make (I think Tommy Hawk delivered the crowning blow to the debate, IIRC).

I don't think it was ever an albatross that dragged down the prior owner's bottom line. It was more of a nullity - an unexploited asset. Why was it unexploited? My belief is that Moyes was an absentee owner (which he was, as demonstrated in the bankruptcy depositions) and missed the boat.

I would not characterize it as "left behind" in the bankruptcy proceedings, either, as if it was forgotten about. The NHL took great care to ensure that it would have those rights to pass on to a new owner if the team stayed in Glendale.

As to it being the most valuable part, that is simply a function of how one can break apart the components of a franchise. For any team with parking facilities, the parking business is going to be a disproportionately valuable part of the franchise, because it is such a high-margin business. By itself, it is a significant money maker with a great ROI. Of course, by itself it is not worth that much, as it derives its value from the existence of the team/arena, but it is very valuable on the basis of its cashflow. You could do that elsewhere as well; if, for example, you were to want to sell off the franchise's rights to receive NHL centrally generated revenue (about $9M with no corresponding costs), its value would be even higher than parking rights. You could do the same with suite revenue (which is also a high-margin part of the business).

It all depends on how you slice and dice the assets/liabilities. Eventually, though, if you sell off valuable high-margin parts of the business, you reduce the value of the remaining business. Putting aside the predictable nonsense of jokes about parking revenue that abound here, i would think that the REAL debate is whether it is wise for Hulsizer to give away a valuable asset for the quick buck now, instead of reducing his capital risk. Now THAT would be a useful business discussion, as opposed to boring parking jokes.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 06:53 PM
  #263
Mungman
It's you not me.
 
Mungman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post



I am editing this to add that I'm a commodities trader; I only rarely trade bonds, and especially not munis because the risk generally isn't there in most cases - in that market segment. I've not read all of the related materials and do not wish to engage to a protracted battle with a pedantic lawyer over something I've little interest in. As such, you are welcome to your assumptions. Good luck and do carry as if I don't care.
The bolded portion is the key statement, much like the CoG lawyer letters the assumptions some use (CoG walks on water, GWI lives in the 4th ring of Hades) make all the difference in what comes out of the keyboard.

Mungman is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:09 PM
  #264
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I appreciate that it is easy to miss big chunks of a debate, especialy when there are heated discussions of Shane Doan's kids and Eric Belanger to be had. I missed part of the debate myself, in fact

Actually, the debate was taken up in my absense by several other posters, each of whom have made many valuable business discussion contributions here. They wound up making the case that i was not around at the time to make (I think Tommy Hawk delivered the crowning blow to the debate, IIRC).

I don't think it was ever an albatross that dragged down the prior owner's bottom line. It was more of a nullity - an unexploited asset. Why was it unexploited? My belief is that Moyes was an absentee owner (which he was, as demonstrated in the bankruptcy depositions) and missed the boat.

I would not characterize it as "left behind" in the bankruptcy proceedings, either, as if it was forgotten about. The NHL took great care to ensure that it would have those rights to pass on to a new owner if the team stayed in Glendale.

As to it being the most valuable part, that is simply a function of how one can break apart the components of a franchise. For any team with parking facilities, the parking business is going to be a disproportionately valuable part of the franchise, because it is such a high-margin business. By itself, it is a significant money maker with a great ROI. Of course, by itself it is not worth that much, as it derives its value from the existence of the team/arena, but it is very valuable on the basis of its cashflow. You could do that elsewhere as well; if, for example, you were to want to sell off the franchise's rights to receive NHL centrally generated revenue (about $9M with no corresponding costs), its value would be even higher than parking rights. You could do the same with suite revenue (which is also a high-margin part of the business).

It all depends on how you slice and dice the assets/liabilities. Eventually, though, if you sell off valuable high-margin parts of the business, you reduce the value of the remaining business. Putting aside the predictable nonsense of jokes about parking revenue that abound here, i would think that the REAL debate is whether it is wise for Hulsizer to give away a valuable asset for the quick buck now, instead of reducing his capital risk. Now THAT would be a useful business discussion, as opposed to boring parking jokes.
Considering the city may get lightrail service to Westgate within the next 15 years, my guess is MH is wise to dump the parking rights for 100,000,000 dollars.

Confucius is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:13 PM
  #265
crazed323
Registered User
 
crazed323's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Even if the deal were as you suggested, then no, it's not riskier. It is covered by the same excise taxes that a sewer deal would be covered by.
The risk lies in the tax payers having to pay for the bonds with excise taxes. The COG has repeatedly said they have no plans to use taxes to pay the bonds. They only use it as a guarantee so that they could get a better rate on the bonds. If excise taxes are going to be used I cannot see how it would not affect the public services that COG said it would not.

crazed323 is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:28 PM
  #266
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
Considering the city may get lightrail service to Westgate within the next 15 years, my guess is MH is wise to dump the parking rights for 100,000,000 dollars.
Hmm, yes, the COG would not have any idea what its plans are in that regard, would they?

I think they might know a little about the likelihood and timing of rail service.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:34 PM
  #267
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazed323 View Post
The risk lies in the tax payers having to pay for the bonds with excise taxes. The COG has repeatedly said they have no plans to use taxes to pay the bonds. They only use it as a guarantee so that they could get a better rate on the bonds. If excise taxes are going to be used I cannot see how it would not affect the public services that COG said it would not.
To be frank with you, I am really not going to discuss public services provided by Glendale. It is immaterial to the topic of hockey in Phoenix and the business transaction. I have other stronger views on that topic, but they are a little too close to "the flame" for me to discuss, if you catch my drift. PM me if you wish.

Theoretical question, though: if the COG has to pay a shortfall of parking revenues in the first few years, but makes up for it and replenishes those shortfalls in later years, does that make a difference to anyone here?

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:37 PM
  #268
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Hmm, yes, the COG would not have any idea what its plans are in that regard, would they?

I think they might know a little about the likelihood and timing of rail service.
Well they are pushing for it, and it is proposed for completion by 2026. I guess if they own the parking around Westgate they may shelve the idea. That may not go over too well with the citizens of Glendale.

Edit to add: I'm sure MH and the businesses around Westgate would prefer a lightrail stopping out front.


Last edited by Confucius: 04-07-2011 at 07:46 PM.
Confucius is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:50 PM
  #269
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
Well they are pushing for it, and it is proposed for completion by 2026. I guess if they own the parking around Westgate they may shelve the idea. That may not go over too well with the citizens of Glendale.

Edit to add: I'm sure MH and the businesses around Westgate would prefer a lightrail stopping out front.
I get the sense that the Phoenix metro area is very much a car culture. Typically in an area like that mass transit is reserved for 'losers' and shunned by the majority.

Of course I could be wrong, and goodness knows where gas prices will go.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 07:54 PM
  #270
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
I get the sense that the Phoenix metro area is very much a car culture. Typically in an area like that mass transit is reserved for 'losers' and shunned by the majority.

Of course I could be wrong, and goodness knows where gas prices will go.
Actually it seems like a great idea, connecting those Scottsdale fans, and other areas of Phoenix to Wesgate by Lightrail. None of that traffic to worry about, you even wouldn't be apprehensive about having a beer or two.

Edit to Add: Oh the lightrail is happening, it's just a matter of where in Glendale it will stop.

Confucius is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 08:04 PM
  #271
BrianSTC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Its' one perspective that should be heard, agree or disagree all you want, its valid and more right than wrong in most instances.
There is truth and valid points on both sides. It makes reading through this thread really fascinating. Especially, the lawyers taking time out on this forum to present their cases for and against. Hence, the popularity of the Phoenix threads over say the Atlanta threads.

BrianSTC is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 08:08 PM
  #272
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I appreciate that it is easy to miss big chunks of a debate, especialy when there are heated discussions of Shane Doan's kids and Eric Belanger to be had. I missed part of the debate myself, in fact
Good post (truncated for space), I appreciate the detailed reply. Quite frankly, I wish I could analyze the numbers in more detail so my contribution was more than my "it doesn't pass the smell test" argument. (I also wish GWI would undertake an analysis of the numbers, both on parking and the arena management fee, but that's a whole other story).

Ludwig Fell Down is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 08:25 PM
  #273
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Theoretical question, though: if the COG has to pay a shortfall of parking revenues in the first few years, but makes up for it and replenishes those shortfalls in later years, does that make a difference to anyone here?
Not to me. Let the private entity that owns those rights take that risk.

To the point specifically, time value of money and their cash flows during the deficit years are material in this regard. Why take on the unnecessary risk?

 
Old
04-07-2011, 08:59 PM
  #274
Fidel Astro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,326
vCash: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
While I do respect the opinion of people on the other side of the debate, please provide me with one cogent argument for why the GWI's actions have not directly increased the cost of bonding?
Others have answered this better than I could. I don't pretend to know a lot about bonds, and frankly, I don't care.

Quote:
Aside from the presumption the deal is illegal (presumed guilt simply is not part of our criminal or civil system), the precise strategy of the GWI has been to tamper with a deal without being put "to their proof".
No one is tampering with anything. GWI has said they feel the deal is illegal, and that they plan to sue if it goes through without modifications. It's up to the CoG and Hulsizer to decide whether they want to go through with the deal and risk a lawsuit (which, if they can prove the deal is legal, they would surely win), or shut the whole thing down for fear of losing a suit.

How are they tampering with anything? GWI has no power to stop anything Glendale's government decides to do. They can make a big public fuss about it and threaten to sue, but the CoG is not obligated to listen to them.

Also, it's not like GWI is saying "Hulsizer looks like a shady character, it's probably illegal." They're saying "according to the information we have available, the deal appears illegal" and they're asking the CoG to provide them with documents that indicate otherwise.

As I've said before, I don't think painting GWI as the villain in this story is going to help anyone. If everything is legal, it should be very simple for the CoG to prove it and thus remove the GWI from the scenario entirely. They're not out to get the City of Glendale, they're attempting to save taxpayers from what they consider a deal that will have a negative impact. All CoG needs to do is show them evidence that they're wrong.

Why hasn't that happened yet?

Quote:
You ask why people demonize the GWI. It is because of their tactics and because of their response of "its not our problem" when asked about the consequences of the Coyotes leaving.
It's not their problem. They are interested in the legality of the deal itself, not the potential future ramifications to the suburban development the arena is located in. That's no one's problem but the CoG's. It's not the NHL's, it's not GWI's, it's not Hulsizer's, it's not even Winnipeg's. It makes for a good sob story, and is obviously being used to evoke sympathy, but it's not even all that relevant to the deal at hand from anyone's point of view but the CoG's.

It's the city's own damn fault for expecting a different result out of the Coyotes after 15 years of (at worst) hideous failure and (at best) mediocrity. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the future of some development in Glendale is about as interesting to me as pothole repairs on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg are to you.

Quote:
No one would deny them their right to file suit to enjoin the sale, but instead they appear content to have the bonds be sold at an unnecessarily high interest rate, and then play a version of Russian roulette with the taxpayer money on whether their opinion on the legality of the transaction is correct. Many people are quick to ask what if the deal is illegal? Few people are willing to ask, what if the deal is perfectly legal?
How are they playing Russian roulette with taxpayer money? I'm pretty sure their goal is to prevent taxpayer money from being used frivolously.

As for the legality of the deal, the reason a lot of people suspect it's illegal is because the CoG's actions don't exactly make it seem like they have a lot of confidence. If it was legal, they should have gotten rid of GWI from day one by providing whatever documents, etc. GWI asked for. I'm sure it's annoying to have to put all of that **** together, but they would have saved themselves a huge headache had they done so months (maybe even years) ago instead of just 'playing' with GWI until the last minute.

Quote:
In passing, I would point out the GWI lost today again in court on their position against alternative energy. They fought solar energy in Arizona. Nuff said.
Who cares? I'm sure the GWI has all kinds of positions that I would personally find questionable, but none of them are relevant to the current Coyotes situation.

Fidel Astro is offline  
Old
04-07-2011, 10:36 PM
  #275
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
GWI cannot impact the selling price of something that isn't being sold.

 
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 02:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.