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

[GSC2k2*]

She said it during her presser at Jobing.com. You will be able to find it within the first few minutes of her speech.

Link: http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/podcastplayer.htm?pid=335&iid=29707

No, she didn't. It was reported in ESPN by Burnside about Hulsizer, not Scruggs. See my reply post to Ghost on the last page.

 

[Dado]

Mork's posts are appreciated because (a) they're too the point and (b) they're unfailingly polite and respectful of other people's time.

 

[Killion]

She said it during her presser at Jobing.com. You will be able to find it within the first few minutes of her speech.]

Thanks for finding that RAgin. I sometimes have trouble separating the real from imagined choirs ringing through my attic; really a very frightening Gregorian Chant at times but I digress. I was quite certain Id' heard Mayor Scruggs' voice saying just that through the cacophony of doubt & derision heaped upon my soul for having the temerity to suggest it was so.

Edit; Great. Thereafter the link doesnt confirm?. I tell ya'll its out there, either that or Ive got Bats in the Belfry' again...

 

[cbcwpg]

The US teams would have been smart enough to say 'no' to the "Save Canada's teams because our dollar sucks" fund, and there would only be 2 teams in Canada right now?

And since the 6 Canadian teams today account for more than 30% of the NHL's revenue, just having 2 Canadian teams would have been disasterous financially for the NHL. The NHL knew what they were doing by saving the backbone on the league, the Canadian teams.

Today we are talking about a franchise ( Coyotes ) that has NEVER made money in its existance.

 

[Confucius]

So what am I supposed to do? Spell it all out at once, or deal with a thousand arguments such as "where is that written" or "how do you know that" or "what about this"? You tell me.

Personally, I would just like to hear your opinion in a short paragraph. No need to go into detail with me. Who wants to hear every little intracacy? No wonder I've seen images of Judges and jurrors falling asleep during trials. I know there are others who relish the details. Whenever you get into the long explanations, you lose me. Not that you care, I understand that. Long as you understand I probably miss most of what you're writing about. Not that it's your fault entirely, I know it's mine.

Heck I already call Killion the riddler, mainly because half the time after he posts, I think, HUH?

 

[bleuet]

The US teams would have been smart enough to say 'no' to the "Save Canada's teams because our dollar sucks" fund, and there would only be 2 teams in Canada right now?

I respect your opinion, on this side of the topic.

Was it better to add 8 or 9 teams in places where NHL was drawing little if no interest, and in competition with religions like NFL, MLB, NBA?

Namely, I never undestood the idea or bringing the Panthers, The Thrashers, The Coyotes, The Blue Jackets..

Why did Bettman did nothing to save the Nordiques and the Jets in hockey places and now fighting like hell to keep ICE HOCKEY teams in the sunbelt?

Wow, nothing like a good Thrashers - Predators game, I can't wait! Ho better, The Blue Jackets visits the Panthers, I'll be one of the 3000 people watching the game on TV.

You're right, lets stay in 2011, and fix this league, it still worth it!

 

[pucka lucka]

Personally, I would just like to hear your opinion in a short paragraph. No need to go into detail with me. Who wants to hear every little intracacy? No wonder I've seen images of Judges and jurrors falling asleep during trials. I know there are others who relish the details. Whenever you get into the long explanations, you lose me. Not that you care, I understand that. Long as you understand I probably miss most of what you're writing about. Not that it's your fault entirely, I know it's mine.

Heck I already call Killion the riddler, mainly because half the time after he posts, I think, HUH?

Killion is the Dennis Miller of BoH

 

[LadyStanley]

To summarize the last 20 hours or so.

• ESPN releases word that COG plans to sue GWI
• Hultizer says that there are $40m in losses to date (which would be added on to the sales price)

So that's at least two unforeseen plot twists. Doesn't seem like my title was that off now.

(Still, Lawyers, Guts and Money sounds like an appropriate title for the next thread, regardless of legal issues going forward.)

My guess is things need to be "finalized" WRT sale of bonds/lease, etc., in the next few days or the NHL will announce the team won't be in Glendale next season. (And then we might hear about TNSE and/or Quebecore bidding on team, with an estimated price of $210m+.)

 

[bleuet]

Can I suggest Will there finally be a sunset?

 

[RECCE]

To summarize the last 20 hours or so.

• ESPN releases word that COG plans to sue GWI
• Hultizer says that there are $40m in losses to date (which would be added on to the sales price)

So that's at least two unforeseen plot twists. Doesn't seem like my title was that off now.

(Still, Lawyers, Guts and Money sounds like an appropriate title for the next thread, regardless of legal issues going forward.)

My guess is things need to be "finalized" WRT sale of bonds/lease, etc., in the next few days or the NHL will announce the team won't be in Glendale next season. (And then we might hear about TNSE and/or Quebecore bidding on team, with an estimated price of $210m+.)

"(How Much) Is That Doggie in the Window"?

 

[Kismet]

Just listened to it - confirmed - in that clip she never said or even suggested that anyone at GWI had greenlit the deal, even in principle-only.

I think she says two interesting things with respect to this debate.

“Since December, thousands of pages of documents have been provided that explains (sic) our agreement in detail…â€
“…and just two months ago, Clint Bolick, the lead attorney for the Goldwater Institute, told us he had everything needed to analyze the agreement.â€

So, which came first...the Bolick or the detail?

 

[blues10]

To summarize the last 20 hours or so.

• ESPN releases word that COG plans to sue GWI
• Hultizer says that there are $40m in losses to date (which would be added on to the sales price)

So that's at least two unforeseen plot twists. Doesn't seem like my title was that off now.

(Still, Lawyers, Guts and Money sounds like an appropriate title for the next thread, regardless of legal issues going forward.)

My guess is things need to be "finalized" WRT sale of bonds/lease, etc., in the next few days or the NHL will announce the team won't be in Glendale next season. (And then we might hear about TNSE and/or Quebecore bidding on team, with an estimated price of $210m+.)

Lets not forget if Hulsizer for some reason is unable to purchase the Coyotes the NHL still has the $25 million from the COG in escrow. The final purchase price if relocation is needed could be in the $185 million range.

 

[Faltorvo]

"Fabricates"?

Sorry, but you are way over the line. I have had it with your baseless allegations regarding my credibility.

Here is what I said:



READ the above. I was very careful to note that IF the allegations were correct, then it may be such a case as described. At no time did I state that they were true.

I gave you the link, which had already been posted in this thread and was available to read even before I re-posted it. As it turns out, I had erred in referring to Scruggs instead of Hulsizer - as if THAT makes a difference to the substance of the matter. Nevertheless, I acknoowledged that relatively inconsequential error.

At no time did I reference that there was a quotation from Scruggs or Hulsizer. Yet, in a series of posts, you seem to assert that I did. You are in error.

I will not sit back and allow you to suggest that I am fabricating anything.

I never asserted that you referenced a quote, i have been saying from post 1 that there are NO Quotes there.

Sorry chum I am not even close to the line.

There is nothing in that link that alleges anything.

Debate all you want if the contents of the allegation are true or not.

The fact is the allegation was never made , full stop.


Be it Scruggs OR Hulz , there is nothing in there assuring anyone anything.

There are no quotes to that affect , there is no acknowledgment by Burnside that he had a discussion with either Scruggs or Hulz on that topic.

A pure and utter fabrication.

 

[peg]

To summarize the last 20 hours or so.

• ESPN releases word that COG plans to sue GWI
• Hultizer says that there are $40m in losses to date (which would be added on to the sales price)

So that's at least two unforeseen plot twists. Doesn't seem like my title was that off now.

(Still, Lawyers, Guts and Money sounds like an appropriate title for the next thread, regardless of legal issues going forward.)

My guess is things need to be "finalized" WRT sale of bonds/lease, etc., in the next few days or the NHL will announce the team won't be in Glendale next season. (And then we might hear about TNSE and/or Quebecore bidding on team, with an estimated price of $210m+.)

I don't agree with your estimate of the price. It would be $170 million which was the price the NHL paid to the yotes out of bankruptcy plus the losses from last year. If the team is sold to another market they would pay that amount and the COG would be responsible for this years losses. Only MH in keeping the yotes in Glendale would pay $170 million plus cover this year's losses.

 

[New User Name]

The US teams would have been smart enough to say 'no' to the "Save Canada's teams because our dollar sucks" fund, and there would only be 2 teams in Canada right now?

Then I'd suggest the amount from Canadian TV deals would have been significantly less as well...probably to the point where the minuscule amounts paid under the Canadian assistance plan (compared to RS) and the lesser TV contracts came close to the extreme generosity of the assistance plan.

As well, I think Canadian teams have more than paid back the generous amounts offered to them for the few years of the CAP, in the form of RS to those teams in need.

I think I read the total paid out during the entire existence of the plan was 40 million Canadian.

Now if we can only find out what teams are receiving (and how much) RS and what teams are paying into it and how much.

The answers might just shock you.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

To summarize the last 20 hours or so.

• ESPN releases word that COG plans to sue GWI
• Hultizer says that there are $40m in losses to date (which would be added on to the sales price)

So that's at least two unforeseen plot twists. Doesn't seem like my title was that off now.

I was going to comment that the title turned out to be quite appropriate.

 

[Killion]

Not that it's your fault entirely, I know it's mine.

"Its better to light one small candle, than to curse the darkness"...
Frank "The Riddler" Gorshin

"If knowledge be the light to wisdom, why do I have Bats on the Brain?"....
Jim "The Riddler" Carrey

Because you're old and they call you the "Cataract Kid"

No, because I have to get a telescope out & look through it butt backwards in order to read a word youve written. You some kinda "Paul is Dead" play it in reverse at 33&1/3rd conspiracy theory expert writing in code?. Can I buy a vowel using vdollars?.

the Bolick or the detail?

Never mind the Bollocks, Heres' the Sex Pistols.....

 

[Fugu]

What "public service" did they & have they performed in usurping the right of duly elected officials right to decide?. How is it a public service to engage in subterfuge with hollow threats that have spiked the interest rates into gamma & out of site, potentially costing the very taxpayers they profess to protect 10's of millions, delaying & freezing the deal solid where it stands?. For weeks they have had enough inf. to form a legal opinion & either drop the writ if they felt it was illegal or not. No, instead they seem to simply disagree with the "philosophical nature" of this proposal. Who elected these people to decide?.

Et tu, Brute? You could only support what you just wrote above about public officials if you felt these people were always honest, and infallible. I don't believe you to be that naive, my dear friend.

It's a watchdog group. They may choose what they like to watch and dog, but they cannot act unless they believe that a govt entity has broken a law. I may not align myself with them politically, but I would never endorse any situation that allows publicly elected officials to break the law. Okay, maybe if the lives of thousands of children were at stake, but I'd have to draw the line at the humanitarian disaster level. And like the three laws of robotics, saving one doesn't condone the harm of another (or something to that effect).



If there were no question of legality, GWI wouldn't have the possibility of meddling.

That is about the most irrelevant statement made to date (although the bank robbery one gives it a run for its money).

Not irrelevant, but extreme, I'll grant you. You almost sound like Rand--- move out of my way because there's business to be done.

I have a hard time believing that one can put forward a position that GWI was not interfering and in fact intending to do so.

I think the record will show that they have the right to COG's documents, and that if they believe there is a legal basis for their case--- they are allowed to sue. Has COG questioned their right to bring a suit?

LEt me ask you (and anyone else) a question:

Where is it written in the GWI website or other documentation that their mandate is to protect the interests of bond investors, including those who may not only not be in AZ, but who may be on the other side of the world?

Completely irrelevant. They are an organization that has set their own mandate. They need neither your approval nor mine. They're shining a flashlight in a dark & dirty kitchen to see how many cockroaches might be out. Will they find any?

I will save you the trouble. They have no such mandate.

You tell me. Who has the authority or right to set their mandate.

Next.

Let's try another one:

You sure about that? Your last crash and burn was impressive.

Where have they asserted that the bond transaction (the one that they are interfering with) is itself illegal?

Again, I can helpfully provide the answer. They have made no such allegation.

What they have alleged is clearly stated by GWI spokespeople. If any part of a deal is illegal, it would nullify the entire agreement. Or are you going to claim that Hulsizer would proceed with parts of his agreement stricken?

The clear reality is that, if they wanted to prevent the alleged gift, they would do so by either filing a claim or applying for an injunction, both of which (as Ms. Sitren confirmed) are available to them.

The clear reality is that they can do so when they feel they are ready. Nothing you've said above precludes them from filing when they're ready.

Making the statements (and inaccurate ones, as they were) to the investment community do not ensure that the transaction will not complete.

You've gone out pretty far on this limb-- for a lawyer. The investment community will decide both IF they wish to invest, and the risk level to accept if they do indeed invest.

The statements are not inaccurate. You saying they are inaccurate doesn't make it so.

CoG has $100M available (in their infrastructure fund) that they could spend to give to MH, if they wanted to do so. THey could also accept the interest rate that the market imposes. They are instead choosing what they perceive to be a more prudent financing choice. Sending the letters to a group who they have no self-imposed duty to protect prevents nothing except that it raises CoG's cost of borrowing.

There are no guarantees in the world of investing. Sometimes people invest a lot of money into things and lose everything.

Obviously, due to this outcome, this is not the most prudent financing choice. The market has spoken. COG must revisit their options and choose the next most prudent course.

And again, GWI has every right to decide their mandate. It's too bad some don't like it, but there you have it. Freedom to pursue your own cause.

And that, dear friend, is what in my view the law calls an actionable tort. it is intentional interference with economic relations on its face.

No, it is not interference [as Mork has now explained as well]. Everyone has a right to pursue their own business interests within the guidelines of the law. The question is - and remains - whether or not COG's actions would violate Arizona's constitution.

GWI has opined that they would, and if they embarked on this path, the possibility [perhaps even stated as a certainty] would be a lawsuit to contest it on the grounds of constitutionality.

Why would anyone argue about the public's and investment community-at-large's right to know the details?

 

[GSC2k2*]

I never asserted that you referenced a quote, i have been saying from post 1 that there are NO Q

No one said there was a quote, so why were you even mentioning that there was no quote? Why do you mention it? Do we not agree?

Sorry chum I am not even close to the line.

When you incorrectly say people are fabricating things, and making lawyer/liar comments, then yeah you are over the line. If you do not realize it, that is a shame. That is all I am going to say on that.

There is nothing in that link that alleges anything.

Debate all you want if the contents of the allegation are true or not.

The fact is the allegation was never made , full stop.

Burnside reported that the Bolick/Hulsizer meeting happened and the impressions that were left. He provided no evidence of either. That is an allegation.

Be it Scruggs OR Hulz , there is nothing in there assuring anyone anything.

As I said before, IF true, then Hulsizer got that impression from somewhere. I will ask again: WHERE did he get that from?

There are no quotes to that affect , there is no acknowledgment by Burnside that he had a discussion with either Scruggs or Hulz on that topic.

HENCE why I said "IF true".

IF you had not gotten personal with your attempts at argumentation, I would have ignored this completely.

I am spent on this. You have the floor for the final word.

 

[Fugu]

Not unless they use an illegal, unlawful or improper means.

Thank you, Mork. I hope you find more time to spend with us here. It's great to get as many vantage points as possible.

If Glendale really does intend to sue Goldwater for intentional interference and a declaration that the deal is valid, I think Goldwater is in a very good position to defend.

The intentional interference claim is, in my view, utter nonsense. Others may disagree, but I haven't yet seen any legal authority that overcomes the need to prove Goldwater used illegal, unlawful or improper means. They are within their rights to make their views known, and to bring legal action if and when they choose to do so.

As for a declaration that the deal is constitutionally valid, Hallelujiah! At last a court can decide that based on evidence in a proceeding in which Glendale has to produce all the evidence that is relevent to the constitutionality of the deal. I don't think Goldwater would mind for one minute responding to that claim.

Furthermore, the institution of legal proceedings all on its own likely blows the Hulsizer deal out of the water once and for all, meaning that Goldwater wins the battle and the war.

Agree completely. GWI has been waiting and waiting and waiting. I doubt the production of all the documents -- finally -- would scare them away.

 

[Fugu]

This isn't about opinion Killion, this is purely about facts.

There has never been a claim/statement or anything of the sort even remotely close to that assertion, either by Hulz or Scruggs.

There is absolutely nothing on the record in regards to that AT ALL.

Potatoe/ potato is that like lawyer/ liar?

Wait a minute, are you saying that what Burnside opined on with out providing any quotes by any of them ANYWHERE meets your burden of PROOF?

I'm not even sure that measures up to the lowly term hearsay, since there are no quotes provided?

Hell, he didn't even bother to indicate that Hulz or Scruggs relaid this information to him.

Someone on the forum, I cannot exactly recall whom, has provided several lengthy dissertations on why information from the media should generally be disregarded as inaccurate.

Anyone linking to the Burnside article without severely questioning it's veracity would do well to go and find those opinions about media reports before they used anything in Burnside's column as the basis for their position.

Just think if Shoaltz had waded into this pool.

When do we accuse Burnside of being someone's puppet, or just worrying about page clicks?

Or my personal favorite: HE HAS AN AGENDA!!!

 

[MaskedSonja]

So Cog is intending to sic the hounds on GWI? I'm wondering what has pushed them to do this finally. Maybe to show they have "nothing to hide"?

I suspect that they are doing exactly GWI wants them to do-perhaps that was part of the point-to make CoG "blink". Why chase after the fox when you can make the fox come to you?

 

[cbcwpg]

So Cog is intending to sic the hounds on GWI? I'm wondering what has pushed them to do this finally. Maybe to show they have "nothing to hide"?

I suspect that they are doing exactly GWI wants them to do-perhaps that was part of the point-to make CoG "blink". Why chase after the fox when you can make the fox come to you?

The CoG is just hoping that the mere mention of "hundreds of millions" in a lawsuit will send the GWI scurrying for cover never to be heard from again.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Haven't read all the posts since this threat by CoG came out but.....wouldn't this sink the deal anyway? Is anyone really going to stick around to find out how a lawsuit launched by Glendale against Goldwater turns out?
Any lawsuit filed by Glendale against Goldwater would no doubt bring a lawsuit from Goldwater against Glendale as well.....I can't see the NHL or Hulsizer sticking around to see how it turns out.

 

[Confucius]

So Cog is intending to sic the hounds on GWI? I'm wondering what has pushed them to do this finally. Maybe to show they have "nothing to hide"?

I suspect that they are doing exactly GWI wants them to do-perhaps that was part of the point-to make CoG "blink". Why chase after the fox when you can make the fox come to you?

Time has runout.
There must have been a deadline with the league. How else can time runout. The deal is over, the city is now probably looking into blaming or maybe even sueing Goldwater for some cash. The city has nothing more to lose.

It's all my own personal opinion, don't try this at home, or bet, or invest any cash on it.