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

[wpgJetsfan]

The Glendale Mayor said "TIME HAS RUN OUT" in here Press Conference and to this day no one knows what she means. Now we hear about the COG filing a lawsuit on Monday.

Perhaps "Time has run out" and that the COG is now trying to sue GWI for the cost of the empty arena.

There is still a chance that they will put those Bonds on sale in hopes they sell this week to change the NHL's mind. But as most Anaylst think, its TOAST.

The NHL could be working with TNSE for the relocation of the team to Winnipeg next season. I mean come on, why is there such HUGE media hype lately over Winnipeg?

 

[RAgIn]

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.

Mass confusion on my part! I just woke up from a much desired nap. However, I doubt that anything substantial will be raised tonight

It's all quiet on the media front, both in PHX and WPG.

But tomorrow on the other hand...

 

[Faltorvo]

Well that's part of the issue. If it were 9% or less, the sale could have gone through. It has not, and COG is on the defensive, citing that they would need to spend millions more [$100m per MH] than would be the case w/o GWI's presence.

That tells me there was a market, but it could only be more than 9%. How much more is open to conjecture. Thus, where there are the two options, 1) >9%, or (2) no buyers, I conclude that there were buyers but the amount required couldn't be justified by COG. Hence the part about, to paraphrase, needlessly costing the taxpayers more than would be otherwise possible.

Well 116m on a 30 year term.

6% was projected ,now possibly 9%. Difference is 3%

116m 3% over 30 is about 104m extra debt service.

 

[Coach]

IANAL but I expect it will be ridiculously easy for the City to find witnesses to testify in court to the chilling effect the interfering Goldwater letters had on their prospective business deals with the city.

Empty-netter.

I just hope Glendale sues their collective ashes.

I guess if they sue following the court case over the next several years could replace the Coyotes in the Glendale area in terms of viewership. In all seriousness looking at the number of people who follow and post on this site dwarfts the number of fans attending Coyote games. I find this site addicting.

 

[Fugu]

Well 116m on a 30 year term.

6% was projected ,now possibly 9%. Difference is 3%

116m 3% over 30 is about 104m extra debt service.

Yes, Othmar (or maybe Whileee) did some calcs earlier. I think part of the problem is that we're approximating, while COG had a hard ceiling of 9%. MH did say "about" iirc.

Honestly, I'm not hanging my hat on either position--- that all buyers were scared off or that the rate really was much higher than they could or wanted to go. I'm just speculating based on the limited info we have.

 

[Confucius]

I guess if they sue following the court case over the next several years could replace the Coyotes in the Glendale area in terms of viewership. In all seriousness looking at the number of people who follow and post on this site dwarfts the number of fans attending Coyote games. I find this site addicting.

It's crack and Fugu's the dealer. Maybe we can sue?

 

[RAgIn]

Only Toronto and Montreal are backbone Canadian teams. The other 4 have lost money at some point or another.

Having two Canadians teams would not be disastrous. The NHL is a league based in New York City. In fact I just want to watch hockey and the amount of Canadians does not matter to me.

They should've just borded all the teams up, like Jobing.com Arena will. Eesh.

 

[cbcwpg]

Assuming that the CoG does in fact file suit on Monday March 7th AND the true NHL deadline in March 15th, does anyone thing that the courts can make a ruling on this in 8 days? And what if the GWI files thier suit?

 

[wpgJetsfan]

CBC, I doubt it. Just look at how long BK took and the previous GWI lawsuit of the COG and yet that case is still open.

 

[RAgIn]

I think the COG was hoping that a lawsuit with GWI would scare them off. Their only hope is to scare GWI into agreeing not to pursue their lawsuit. It also has the side benefit of potentially recouping losses from GWI, but I think their primary tactic here is to just scare GWI away.

Of course, if the Coyotes really do leave Glendale, COG will probably have lots of people to sue... Moyes, the NHL, and GWI, and Janet Gretzky just for funzies.

Don't forget David Shoalts. He's been undermining their operation and lying since day 1!

All kidding aside, I'm sure litigation will be fruitful with the COG for years to come. Anyone want jobs!?

 

[htpwn]

Gary Lawless:



http://twitter.com/garylawless/status/44246975134171136

Apparently the NHL is still trying to salvage the bond sale.

I guess this means COG will go ahead with selling the bonds at 9%?

If this saga does close with the Coyotes leaving, I don't think anyone can make an argument that the league didn't want to keep the team where it was. You could say that for Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. You could say that the league wanted to go big time and that they didn't do enough to help out small, struggling markets. Here the NHL has pulled out everything they have to keep this team where it is. Why? Who knows at this point.

 

[Dado]

So who's willing to put cash on the table that CoG will actually file the suit against GWI?

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Yes, Othmar (or maybe Whileee) did some calcs earlier. I think part of the problem is that we're approximating, while COG had a hard ceiling of 9%. MH did say "about" iirc.

Honestly, I'm not hanging my hat on either position--- that all buyers were scared off or that the rate really was much higher than they could or wanted to go. I'm just speculating based on the limited info we have.

The bonds do not have a 30 year term. They start to be repaid starting in 2020.

 

[Grumpz]

So who's willing to put cash on the table that CoG will actually file the suit against GWI?

Frankly, I see this is as "were throwing in the towel, but just incase GWI is bluffing, we're going to try to make them believe we're going to file a law suit."

I'd actually be surprised if the CoG did anything.

Just more smoke and mirrors to delay the inevitable.

 

[RAgIn]

So who's willing to put cash on the table that CoG will actually file the suit against GWI?

Well, so far, Burnside is the only source. I wouldn't bet the farm on his sources. But, being proved wrong is fun too.

 

[CasualFan]

Well that's part of the issue. If it were 9% or less, the sale could have gone through. It has not, and COG is on the defensive, citing that they would need to spend millions more [$100m per MH] than would be the case w/o GWI's presence.

That tells me there was a market, but it could only be more than 9%. How much more is open to conjecture. Thus, where there are the two options, 1) >9%, or (2) no buyers, I conclude that there were buyers but the amount required couldn't be justified by COG. Hence the part about, to paraphrase, needlessly costing the taxpayers more than would be otherwise possible.

I'll throw my speculation into the mix. I preface this by acknowledging this is in part based on media reports that I am prepared to consider accurate. Nothing stated here, no matter how it is phrased, should be mistaken as the presentation of fact.

- The NHL is actively promoting the bond sale and it's reasonable to think they can successfully find a small handful of investors to buy the bond at a lucrative interest rate.

- It makes no difference what that interest rate is. Glendale (ie- Scruggs, 3 Council Members) have already sold themselves for this deal. They will support any amount if the result is keeping the team.

- The lawsuit against Goldwater is likely a loser. Glendale is likely aware of that. However, filing such a claim would be a significant chip to play politically. Assuming the NHL finds the investors and Glendale eats the interest, when the bill comes due and Glendale has no means to pay, Scruggs & Co. can point at Goldwater and their attempt to prevent the higher interest rate by legal action.

- Goldwater's suit for violation of Gift Clause, if filed, is also likely a loser. Goldwater is likely aware of that. However, much like Glendale, Goldwater has gone too far down the road to abandon their position. While they may never file a complaint, they are unlikely to respond to Glendale's litigation threat by surrendering.

Or in summary, the NHL will facilitate the sale of the bonds at a insane interest rate; Glendale will eat the extra cost and turn around and sue Goldwater; they'll lose the suit but use the filing to protect their political lives; Goldwater will not file a claim for Gift Clause violation.

And if I'm wrong... sue me!

 

[Melrose Munch]

I think every team has lost money as some point.

Even the Toronto team that was almost sold to Philadelphia before Conn Smythe stepped up.

I also believe the Canadian teams are the backbone of the league.

If you take into account how much total revenue they bring into the NHL, including TV contracts.

As for NY city, whoopee. The headquarters were in Montreal a lot longer and who knows, with a Canadian commissioner in the future, could return to Canada.

The headquarters are NY now. The only reason why the Canadian teams besides Toronto Montreal are doing well is because of the Cap and Dollar.

 

[Wham City]

So who's willing to put cash on the table that CoG will actually file the suit against GWI?

When has the COG ever really done anything, much less on time?

 

[MountainHawk]

How long are these bonds for anyway? Are they callable?

 

[Faltorvo]

If this saga does close with the Coyotes leaving, I don't think anyone can make an argument that the league didn't want to keep the team where it was. You could say that for Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. You could say that the league wanted to go big time and that they didn't do enough to help out small, struggling markets. Here the NHL has pulled out everything they have to keep this team where it is. Why? Who knows at this point.

Well one suspicion i have is the issue with the arena.

The city is on the hook for this , they thought they had a ironclad guaranty that Moyes could not relocate without paying a large penalty.

Probably they even got assurance from GB that going bankrupt was not possible.

This situation makes it somewhat more difficult to get others to pay for their playpens. It does somewhat nurtured any reassurances that GB could bring to the table.

 

[MountainHawk]

I'd be sort of shocked if they can't find ANYONE. I mean, some large corporations are doing things like water treatment, trash removal, security, etc for the arena, you'd think the NHL could go to them and say 'hey, buy $40M of these bonds or your revenue is going away.'

It's more if COG feels they CAN issue them at the 9% rate, IMO.

 

[MountainHawk]

If this saga does close with the Coyotes leaving, I don't think anyone can make an argument that the league didn't want to keep the team where it was. You could say that for Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. You could say that the league wanted to go big time and that they didn't do enough to help out small, struggling markets. Here the NHL has pulled out everything they have to keep this team where it is. Why? Who knows at this point.

The NHL has an awesome deal where they have cities in the US paying for arenas for their teams. In exchange, the NHL is showing they will remain fiercely loyal to the cities that build arenas.

 

[Jet]

I assume you are referring to me, albeit without the desire to single me out and violate the Board rules. No one belittles anyone here except for you and a cadre of like-minded posters who have spent a number of pages doing exactly that at the expense of the actual topic. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not retaliating.

I will interpret your post as loving to have someone here who says what you want to hear. Good stuff.

The fact that you believe I was talking about you says more about what you think about the way YOU post than anything else, methinks. Either way, I'm not going to engage with you, I'd rather just read about the subject at hand.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I don't think anyone can make an argument that the league didn't want to keep the team where it was. You could say that for Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. You could say that the league wanted to go big time and that they didn't do enough to help out small, struggling markets. Here the NHL has pulled out everything they have to keep this team where it is. Why? Who knows at this point.

The NHL ALWAYS pulls out everything they have to keep teams where they are as long as there is some hope of a resolution at some reasonable point.

Every franchise situation throughout league existence is different and there's different levels of hope and ability of the league to help them. Learning the differences is of course a lot more difficult than believing the propaganda mouthpieces in Toronto chanting "buttman hates Canada", though.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

You seriously underestimate the weight & heft of various posters populating these threads Krautso. I would suggest you have a discussion with a Moderator or 3 before casting aspertions' & or categorizing anyones opinion as invalid. Bona-fides are required; pretenders un-welcome.

Well, those bona-fides were providing their opinions without researching the AZ law to determine what it said, even after it was requested for soemone to post the law/statute from AZ.

They don't have to prevent, they have to INTERFERE, and they clearly did that by sending the letters to the underwriters. That point isn't even in dispute, and would almost certainly be stipulated to be true in a court of law. The only question is if it was IMPROPER interference.

They had been "interfering" for long before that in their public statements from way back to JR. The letters to the underwriters, who are not the end bond purchasers, was simply a restatement of their opinion. And it will be difficult since CoG went out and got their own legal opinion as the legality of the contracts. So it can be said that the CoG engaged GI into the bond issuance.

May it be difficult to deduce what was chilling investors since the COG included the possibility of litigation from Goldwater in their bond statement to investors as well?

Well, everyone has completely ignored the opinions of the credit rating agencies associated with CoG debt. Not only did they downgrade their current debt, they also put them on watch and, IIRC, they never mentioned lawsuits. They mentioned debt level, they mentioned subordination of debt to the excise tax revenue stream, etc.

Decided to weigh in? Got over that "need to be qualified to practice in AZ" thing?

Excellent.

That might be true, if they are going to use Ontario law and apply that standard or if the standard in AZ is the same.

You might note the high degree of similarity between the fact situation here and that in the Reach case that you referenced. Would you care to discuss that?

Watching out for the interests of the international bond investor community is assuredly not in the Goldwater mandate, much as PMAC's mandate was exceeded in the Reach case.

Add to that their material misrepresentations as to the test of the Turken case. and voila. Concise enough, I hope.

One of GI's mandates is to ensure that the government doesn't use taxpayer funds for private business subsidies in AZ.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Many people on here start quoting reporters articles as gospel that something happened that way. As pointed out, if this was one reporter, everyone would have been all over him.

The bonds do not have a 30 year term. They start to be repaid starting in 2020.

The term is defined as the length of time to repay them in their entirety, not when principal starts being repaid.

Well, so far, Burnside is the only source. I wouldn't bet the farm on his sources. But, being proved wrong is fun too.

I would bet the farm in AZ on his sources!!!