Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore (UPD #443ff 14-Dec agenda/lease links)

[Tommy Hawk]

what's the over/under on COG getting this done?

sometime down the road and Never

 

[RECCE]

Any one else (read Phx fan) want to chime in with their guesstimate?

Since I was asked but didn't provide an answer, for reasons that I stated earlier and after thinking about it, I'll give you my unbiased edumacted guess.

Three years.

 

[Fidel Astro]

It's still a bunch of emotional gibberish. Campbell is of a similar cloth.

I think most people with a strong opinion on this issue either way have an emotional investment. It's often difficult to discuss it rationally without lapsing into an angry rant.

 

[cheswick]

I think most people with a strong opinion on this issue either way have an emotional investment. It's often difficult to discuss it rationally without lapsing into an angry rant.

I disagree. I think most people are perfectly capable of looking at the situation in a rational manner. I personally think I do just that. You seem to have an issue controlling your emotions however.

What emotional investment Campbell or Brunside would have in the matter escapes me.

 

[Killion]

It's still a bunch of emotional gibberish. Campbell is of a similar cloth.

Minor league writers dealing with big league issues. Push the emotional buttons while providing just enough logic to backup your argument. No question, THN & others have crossed the line between reporting/editorializing/speculating. They've made their minds up about Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Florida & Phoenix. The basic fact remains that not one member of the BOG's could give a Tinkers' Damn about whatever clauses are in or out of a lease agreement between an owner in Phoenix (or elsewhere) & the buildings owners. Under sodium pentathol, Im quite certain you'd find Gary Bettman giggling hysterically in admitting to same while publicly stating the opposite. Posturing in order to extract as much silver & gold as possible from every available source.

Delightful comments such as "the Islanders will not stay in that arena for one hour after their lease expires" or "we will require that $25M be deposited into escrow in order to cover our losses moving forward or this team is gone within 15 minutes". Show me the money. Nothing subtle, subliminal or gracious about it. If youve' got the money, Ive got the time...

 

[Dado]

(they approved JR's MOU unanimously).

It seems to me it's quite unclear what deal they think they actually approved, since it took something like 48 hours for that MOU to completely fall apart.

 

[bacon25]

As for how long it will take for Phoenix to build a steady fan base. I would have to rationally and logically think that it would take around 10 years. Why? Well first one would have to appeal hockey to other races other than white. Secondly, get the population to love hockey more than the other 3 major US sports, plus college football. (Guess where the NCAA Championship game is this year?) Until there is a larger snowbird pop. and people stop whining about the 45 minute drive (which whining actually drives me crazy). Also if the Coyotes could play Detroit for most of their games that would help as well. But even if this did happen it would not necessarily mean profit for the team, that would involve a lot more in the financial marketing dept. Now before any of you on this thread rip this apart remember this is my opinion.

 

[cbcwpg]

Show me the money. Nothing subtle, subliminal or gracious about it. If youve' got the money, Ive got the time...

Thats a good mantra to live by, but the NHL doesn't always live by that.

Seems that IEH never had any money, yet Glendale and the NHL were willing to give them all the time they wanted. The NHL has been known to allow sales of teams to people that have no money.

 

[Killion]

It seems to me it's quite unclear what deal they think they actually approved, since it took something like 48 hours for that MOU to completely fall apart.

This is about to get very very interesting. Their does indeed seem to be a disconnect between what CityManager Beasley & Glendales legal council negotiates & presents to the elected officials for vote. They seem to have a propensity for weaving the fabric of these deals using cheap cloth & shoddy workmanship in stitching it together, slapping on an Armani label, only to have it completely unravel the moment you put it on & wear it out of the house. Tell you what, I wouldve' dispensed with Beasley et al last year & hired some serious talent to get a deal done.

 

[Killion]

Thats a good mantra to live by, but the NHL doesn't always live by that. Seems that IEH never had any money, yet Glendale and the NHL were willing to give them all the time they wanted. The NHL has been known to sell teams to people that have no money.

I certainly dont live by that mantra cbc, but if you ever visit Amsterdam you'll find it in every window....

I blame Beasley & the league for wasting my time, your time, Whileee's, Fugu's etc etc etc over IEH's. We can never get that time back dagnappit....

Only by mistake & a lack of due-dilly did the NHL get hornswoggled by the likes of Boots' et al. Thing is, the league, pretty much since 1927, has had more than its fair share of miscreant owners. Why?. Because its core business practices attract that sort. Its been elevated to a whole new level under Gary Bettman.

 

[peter sullivan]

I still think it is more likely than not that the COG will approve the newest lease. It is almost certain that they will not provide direct subsidies (they can't), so any heavy lifting that might be required for subsidies will fall to the CFD. So, I would say that the probability that the COG approves a lease is upwards of 90% (they approved JR's MOU unanimously).

I am less certain about the likelihood that financial hurdles (establishing the CFD and recruiting business owners, etc.) and legal issues will be resolved. I am also uncertain about how things will play out politically in the current climate. Folks in all municipalities are getting very nervous about their budgets and the extent to which they are seen to be "bailing out" businesses. I don't think anyone can contemplate the odds on these issues being resolved until the lease is made public.

wouldnt you think that this lease agreement will have to have those revemue streams guaranteed....that is the difference between this and an MOU....an MOU was just a framework to move ahead on....a lease agreement is a binding contract....the contract cant be completed without those revenues in place.

since glendale cant legally guarantee any shortfalls in funding, the CFD or whatever mechanisms they are using will have to be solidified before they can truly vote on a completed lease deal that he can take to the NHL.

so, as i see it, if they are not voting on a completed package with all revenues guaranteed then they are not voting on a lease agreeement....have they actually completed this work? or will they turn it around and make it an MOU, (or a lease agreement framework, pending completion of the true heavy lifting) just for the optics of voting on something two weeks before their deadline?

 

[Killion]

so if they are not voting on a completed package with all revenues guaranteed then they are not voting on a lease agreement...at least thats how i see it.

Ditto. Perplexing.

 

[Whileee]

wouldnt you think that this lease agreement will have to have those revemue streams guaranteed....that is the difference between this and an MOU....an MOU was just a framework to move ahead on....a lease agreement is a binding contract....the revenues are an integral part of that contract.

since glendale cant legally guarantee any shortfalls in funding, the CFD or whatever mechanisms they are using will have to be solidified before they can truly vote on a completed deal that he can take to the NHL.

so if they are not voting on a completed package with all revenues guaranteed then they are not voting on a lease agreeemnt.

at least thats how i see it.

You would think so. Reinsdorf's MOU actually set an anticipated time frame for establishing the CFD and its revenue stream ("30-45 days"). Maybe that is what is delaying things... they want to set up the CFD and get it all sorted out before the lease is reviewed for approval. In that case, I wonder why we haven't heard a peep about negotiations on the CFD. Maybe this has all been successfully covered by the "cone of silence", but somehow I have this feeling that even if a lease is presented and approved, there will be plenty of loose threads.

I have seen some suggestions that one of the ways in which Glendale will "subsidize" Hulsizer is to slash lease charges to very low levels, at least for the next several years. Might that be considered a "gift" under Arizona law? Beyond that, I wonder about the financial and political rationale if the reason for keeping the Coyotes at all costs is so that they can continue to help pay off the arena construction costs. If Glendale foregos most of the revenue, they will have to find other sources of funds to pay off the arena debt.

In any case, I suppose that we should see some paperwork soon if they are actually going to be able to take this to Glendale City Council next week, or at least before the end of the month.

 

[cheswick]

I think it's pretty clear that any lease publicly voted on will be passed. There really is no use in going public with a lease agreement when they know it will be voted down. That's what private meetings are for.

 

[peter sullivan]

my guess is the announcement will be 'glendale unanimously approves Hulsizer's framework for a lease agreement. All parties hope that the financing mechanisms will be completed imminently.'

 

[peter sullivan]

.

I have seen some suggestions that one of the ways in which Glendale will "subsidize" Hulsizer is to slash lease charges to very low levels, .

lease charges wont make up anywhere near the $20m+ he will likely be looking for.

 

[Whileee]

lease charges wont make up anywhere near the $20m+ he will likely be looking for.

Agreed. But it might go a ways towards getting Hulsizer to eat this year's losses. I think Glendale is in a real bind about that, as evidenced by all of their contorted public statements on this issue and the fact that the NHL has held off on making any draws on the escrow account. Subsidizing losses will require other revenue streams, presumably from the CFD.

 

[Dado]

my guess is the announcement will be 'glendale unanimously approves Hulsizer's framework for a lease agreement. All parties hope that the financing mechanisms will be completed imminently.'

I hate you.



You're probably right, of course.

 

[NHLfan4life]

Three years to rebuild a fan base. Living here for over 34 years and taking the Suns example, it took about 2 for them to get it together when they were in the dumps for years. Now they've branded themselves very well and having an owner like Jerry C. for years, I can tell you having an owner with a long term commitment does make a difference to Phoenix fans.

Just heard Daly on NHLlive, he sounded very very positive it'll go through. The hosts asked what was next, he basically said once the Lease is approved, Mr. Hulsizer will be formally introduced to the city and the Coyotes have their new owner.

Well, I think the Fat Lady is warming up to sing...in our favor (favour in Canada lol).

This will be a very Merry Christmas for me in particular.

 

[RR]

Fine. My kids never pouted much, but if they had, I probably would have caved.

This story about "Relocation not going to happen" is probably best for the BOG Meeting thread, but could probably go into any thread on relo, and the QC, Atlanta threads too.


http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/2346/relocation-not-going-to-happen


It's still a bunch of emotional gibberish. Campbell is of a similar cloth.

Thank you. I will now stop holding my breath and stomping my little feet.

 

[RR]

My re-quote on Burnside on the other thread was not made in an effort to put his professional standards into disrepute. It was more of a general insight that all of the media outlets are taking a crumb that they have been given and then running it into the endzone as if they have found the perverbial touchdown. No media personalities have ever been given 'the ball'.

It is more of amusement to me I suppose that the media has claimed finality on numerous occasions and changed that resolution ad nauseum.

I agree with you, and that was my point to the original poster. Seems many here like a writer/broadcaster as long as they remain on their team. But once they stray, they're discredited.

 

[RR]

You would think so. Reinsdorf's MOU actually set an anticipated time frame for establishing the CFD and its revenue stream ("30-45 days"). Maybe that is what is delaying things... they want to set up the CFD and get it all sorted out before the lease is reviewed for approval. In that case, I wonder why we haven't heard a peep about negotiations on the CFD. Maybe this has all been successfully covered by the "cone of silence", but somehow I have this feeling that even if a lease is presented and approved, there will be plenty of loose threads.

I have seen some suggestions that one of the ways in which Glendale will "subsidize" Hulsizer is to slash lease charges to very low levels, at least for the next several years. Might that be considered a "gift" under Arizona law? Beyond that, I wonder about the financial and political rationale if the reason for keeping the Coyotes at all costs is so that they can continue to help pay off the arena construction costs. If Glendale foregos most of the revenue, they will have to find other sources of funds to pay off the arena debt.

In any case, I suppose that we should see some paperwork soon if they are actually going to be able to take this to Glendale City Council next week, or at least before the end of the month.

I believe it would be, and is one of the reasons this is likely taking so long.

AIUI any revenue streams in the current lease that are specifically committed to Glendale cannot be reduced. If one is tinkered with a dollar-for-dollar remedy must be included in any new lease. It's why the CFD was being discussed with Moyes pre-bankruptcy, when Beasley told him in 2008 he thought he could get Moyes up to $20M without violating the gift clause.

I do expect we see something next Tuesday. I've given up on trying to guess what that will be. This is the COG we're talking about after all.

 

[kdb209]

I have seen some suggestions that one of the ways in which Glendale will "subsidize" Hulsizer is to slash lease charges to very low levels, at least for the next several years. Might that be considered a "gift" under Arizona law?

I believe it would be, and is one of the reasons this is likely taking so long.

AIUI any revenue streams in the current lease that are specifically committed to Glendale cannot be reduced. If one is tinkered with a dollar-for-dollar remedy must be included in any new lease. It's why the CFD was being discussed with Moyes pre-bankruptcy, when Beasley told him in 2008 he thought he could get Moyes up to $20M without violating the gift clause.

I do expect we see something next Tuesday. I've given up on trying to guess what that will be. This is the COG we're talking about after all.

Except of course, right now there is no lease.

Moyes' estate has filed to reject the existing AMULA in bankruptcy and the NHL/Coyotes are playing under either a one year sublease of the AMULA or a new one-year lease under the same terms as the AMULA (as part of CoG's $25M last minute agreement).

If the current AMULA is terminated in BK court and a new lease agreement is negotiated with a different party than the old lease, it is not clear that more favorable lease terms (reduction of rent or parking charges) would in any way be a violation of the Gift Clause.

Now, it may be politically unworkable as CoG has maintained a position that existing revenue streams be maintained - but it may not be a showstopper w.r.t. the Gift Clause or Goldwater.

 

[RR]

Except of course, right now there is no lease.

Moyes' estate has filed to reject the existing AMULA in bankruptcy and the NHL/Coyotes are playing under either a one year sublease of the AMULA or a new one-year lease under the same terms as the AMULA (as part of CoG's $25M last minute agreement).

If the current AMULA is terminated in BK court and a new lease agreement is negotiated with a different party than the old lease, it is not clear that more favorable lease terms (reduction of rent or parking charges) would in any way be a violation of the Gift Clause.

Now, it may be politically unworkable as CoG has maintained a position that existing revenue streams be maintained - but it may not be a showstopper w.r.t. the Gift Clause or Goldwater.

Interesting point. Had not considered that. Perhaps then Goldwater joins COG in the fight to recover as much as possible from Moyes through BK and possible future litigation. The right for Moyes to file BK (and escape the LD clause) is still to be litigated, yes?

Wouldn't that be fascinating if GI came at this form both sides: "Moyes, you had no right to file BK under the terms of your NHL agreement, and as a result you've hung COG taxpayers out to dry, so we're joining the COG to sue to stop you"; "COG you can keep saying this new lease doesn't involve 'a direct subsidy of taxpayer funds,' but we see it differently, and we're going to sue to stop you."

Never, I know, especially given how smoothly and openly this whole process has unfolded before our eyes.

 

[TheLegend]

I've lived their?

I'll have to look back at my posts but, as far as I recall, I've been their only once and that was in 2009 for Christmas to visit the folks and took in one Coyotes games (Van vs Phx)

In just a little over two weeks it'll be twice.

Then I stand corrected. I recall you mentioning being in the area before.

But I digress, I'll leave the question to you, I could give you my best guess but that would be biased and skew the results of this highly sophisticated scientific poll.

EDIT:


So you're telling me that if you would have simply said "IMHO, I think it would take at least five years to get the attendance up to a respectable standard say, 13,000k on average" That would have been twisted and bent into...what?

I'm saying... placing a hard number on recovering what fanbase was lost and what new fan base that can be grown isn't possible. Too many factors play into it. Winning, of course, plays a big part of it in this market. Consistant trips to the playoffs are going to be essential. The economy will need to get better. How the other three major sports teams do will have some affect on it, although, IMHO, not all that much.

I realize there are more than a few fellow Yotes fans who would give you a hard number... I don't share that. As long as the franchise can show continual growth, if it takes 3, 5, or even 25 years, then so be it.