Phoenix XXIV: How many twists does the scriptwriter have left?

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

peter sullivan

Winnipeg
Apr 9, 2010
2,356
4
^ yeah its a smart move....GWI better make real sure they have their ducks in a row now....they are trying to chase GWI out of the bushes and into the clearing.

to my untrained eye, it seems like they might be able to cast enough doubt on its legality to convince a judge that it would have to scrutinized further....but will GWI have the cohones to take it that far.
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
^ yeah its a smart move....GWI better make real sure they have their ducks in a row now....they are trying to chase GWI out of the bushes and into the clearing.

to my untrained eye, it seems like they might be able to cast enough doubt on its legality to convince a judge that it would have to scrutinized further....but will GWI have the cohones to take it that far.
And by naming the directors individually, this becomes more than is GWI right.

This becomes "Are the directors willing to risk their homes and personal fortunes that GWI is right?"
 

Dado

Guest
will they have to actually sign the lease before they can get a ruling on its legality?

If this "lawsuit" actually gets to court time, they're going to have their kimono blown wide open.

I'm pretty comfortable predicting they either have no intention of actually doing anything beyond filing, or expect to be saved by a Judge tossing the whole thing out on grounds of extreme idiocy.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
If this "lawsuit" actually gets to court time, they're going to have their kimono blown wide open.

I'm pretty comfortable predicting they either have no intention of actually doing anything beyond filing, or expect to be saved by a Judge tossing the whole thing out on grounds of extreme idiocy.

Actually, GWI passing around to potential investors that they were considering suing before the lease was even signed put COG on extremely strong ground. COG going after them for interference was almost inevitable at that point.

You may be comfortable, but GWI isn't. Sticking their nose in before it actually happened may turn out to have been a very major mistake.
 

Ciao

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 15, 2010
10,107
5,928
Toronto
I don't know much about finance, but it seems to me that if Glendale does sue Goldwater and its directors, the bond issue would pretty much be dead. It would take a while for the litigation to work it's way through, and in the meantime the NHL would have to commit to keeping the Coyotes in Glendale for the foreseeable future (which if all works out could be a good thing) or take TNSE's offer and move them to Winnipeg very soon. If they dither, they will miss the off-ramp for TNSE, and if that happens their bargaining advantage with Glendale goes up in smoke. Am I missing something obvious here?

As for the litigation, if Glendale does bring legal action Goldwater's first defence would be that the deal with Hulsizer is unlawful, or at least that there are reasonable grounds to think it so. Glendale would be required to produce all of its documents, including e-mails, and if the action is broad enough it could even go into the details of the negotiations between Glendale, Hulsizer and the NHL. This could go on for years, to the eternal delight of HFBoards' fans.
 

Dado

Guest
I almost wish this did have some chance of getting to a courtroom showdown - Beelzely under cross examination would on its own be worth the price of admission.
 

bleuet

Guest
Stop posting about this subject, the city cannot sue GWI on basis of an exercise of a right.

COG are amateurs. This stupid idea will never stress anybody at GWI.
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
This isn't going to go on for years. They are going to present the evidence that GWI interfered with a business transaction, and if they can prove it even when all evidence is considering in a light favorable to GWI, then a summary judgment will be issued against GWI, and this could happen in a matter of days. If that fails, the suit may go on, but the team will move unless some large institutional investors steps up to buy the bonds very quickly, despite the risk.
 

pucka lucka

Registered User
Apr 7, 2010
5,913
2,581
Ottawa
This isn't going to go on for years. They are going to present the evidence that GWI interfered with a business transaction, and if they can prove it even when all evidence is considering in a light favorable to GWI, then a summary judgment will be issued against GWI, and this could happen in a matter of days. If that fails, the suit may go on, but the team will move unless some large institutional investors steps up to buy the bonds very quickly, despite the risk.

So you've seen the court filing? Can you post it?
 

dkehler

Registered User
Dec 1, 2009
865
0
Winnipeg
And by naming the directors individually, this becomes more than is GWI right.

This becomes "Are the directors willing to risk their homes and personal fortunes that GWI is right?"

I would presume that their board of directors would have liability insurance.
 

peter sullivan

Winnipeg
Apr 9, 2010
2,356
4
And by naming the directors individually, this becomes more than is GWI right.

This becomes "Are the directors willing to risk their homes and personal fortunes that GWI is right?"

seeing my actual name on a lawsuit would be enough for me to run for those cactus covered hills they got there in phoenix.

who will blink first.

funny-dog-pictures-staring-contest.jpg


http://animalsarecool.wordpress.com/dogs/
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
The reports claim up to $500M of damages. They certainly have insurance, but I'd be surprised if they had a limit approaching that.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,440
34,525
On our disconnect - Not quite. From my perspective, what matters is that they cover the financing charges. At the end of the 30 years, provided the team stays (and if it stays for 30 years, odds are it will stay longer), the CoG still has a valuable asset in the parking rights. If they paid off the purchase price PLUS the interest costs, they would have made $100M in equity. The interest costs are what has to be covered.

Huh??? If Hulsizer is acquiring the parking revenue rights from the NHL now, and the COG is simply purchasing the revenue rights for the next 30 years, don't the rights revert back to Hulsizer or the owner of the Team and arena manager at that point in time? This is where the logic starts to fall apart, in my view. If the rights to parking on the city land is a portable asset, that is owned by the arena manager not the COG, then why would you assume that these rights automatically revert back to the COG simply because they own the parking lots themselves?
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
Geez, that doesn't sound so bad. Why are they fighting so hard for the team then?
Because fighting for the team keeps them on the NHL's good side, and is why they'll get an expansion franchise to protect the NHL's image that they'll support you if you build them an arena.
 

billy blaze

Registered User
May 31, 2009
1,480
0
This isn't going to go on for years. They are going to present the evidence that GWI interfered with a business transaction, and if they can prove it even when all evidence is considering in a light favorable to GWI, then a summary judgment will be issued against GWI, and
this could happen in a matter of days.
If that fails, the suit may go on, but the team will move unless some large institutional investors steps up to buy the bonds very quickly, despite the risk.

seriously? a matter of days, when has that ever been the modus operandi when dealing with this dog's breakfast
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,224
GWI will have to present to the judge enough evidence to prevent him from issuing some type of summary relief. A full trial can't happen, so GWI just has to be able to get close enough. But if they are bluffing, and don't actually think it is illegal, then they will be in a world of hurt if this deal falls through.

First of all, as I stated several pages & a thread or 2 back, why didnt the COG seek this remedy much earlier as it was blatantly clear to one & all that both sides positions were entrenched & intractable?. I couldnt understand why they didnt go after GW for Tortious Interference on the letters of 31/01/11 at a minimum. They pulled the trigger on the Bond Issue & watched their Credit Rating drop; the letters inflaming an already nervous muni bond market, the interest rate spiking (Hulsizer fanning the flames) with the potential of an increase in costs rising to as much as $100M+.

The last thing in the World the NHL would need or want would be litigation of anykind, something they have made abundantly clear, and I can only speculate but it would appear to me that the deal is dead. The league is keeping quiet, allowing Glendale to save face, try and exact its pound of flesh from its protagonist & move on. Now, before committing completely to such speculation, I think its important to take a deep breath & a step back, wait & see what the COG actually does, because this is one poster who gave up long ago trying to guess what they might or might not do. Total schizoids'. Why they didnt run to the Underwriters on December 15th, 2010 at 9am I just dont know. They've had months upon months to iron this thing out & yet here we are at Zero Hour with itchy fingers hovering over the Red Button. The NHL doesnt need this, nor do the fans. Total amateurs.
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
yeah I guess that guy Balsillie wasn't carrying a fat wallet
Balsillie was never a real factor until the bankruptcy filing, as the NHL was never going to approve him as an owner. So the only way he could have gotten one is to have the bankruptcy court hand it to him over the NHL's objection, which fortunately didn't happen.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Actually, GWI passing around to potential investors that they were considering suing before the lease was even signed put COG on extremely strong ground. COG going after them for interference was almost inevitable at that point.

You may be comfortable, but GWI isn't. Sticking their nose in before it actually happened may turn out to have been a very major mistake.

Why is the COG on extremely strong ground ?

Why is the GWI not comfortable ?
 

Niagara67

Registered User
Jun 4, 2010
270
0
Jackie Chiles :
They're going sue us? Did you tell them they could sue us? 'Cause they can't sue us 'cause we're sueing them. Sue us? Why that's inefficacious retiarius non-judicious outrageous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad