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

[CGG]

Thursday, March 3, comments are dated?

I know some here want to put on earmuffs if there is even an utterance of disagreement that the Coyotes are 99.99% on their way to Winnipeg. But there comes a point when that confidence becomes laughable.

Don't get me wrong. Not saying for a second there isn't a reasonable possibility the Coyotes move. But to simply dismiss the comments from Devellano, who has almost 30 years in management with the Wings, and who helped bring them back from the depths of being the laughing-stock of the NHL, is disingenuous to the nth degree. IMO, of course.

I think you have the earmuffs on the wrong ears. The NHL hands them out to all the owners and team executives. Publically anyway, they have to completely ignore everything that's going on with other teams' financial nightmares. They can be fined for saying anything that is in contradiction to the "company line". Therefore I wouldn't put an ounce of thought into anything that Jimmy D or any other NHL governor / team VP says right now about the Coyotes. Unless and until it's announced by Gary that the team is moving, they will all say, if forced, that they know no plans of relocation.

Seriously, is Jimmy gonna actually tell the media that Bettman warned everyone last week that Winnipeg is now 80% gonna happen for next year? I doubt it. Enforced silence.

Blaming the evil Toronto-based Canadian media probably earns these people bonus points. Remember, back before the bankruptcy, Bettman too had the earmuffs on and everything with Phoenix was hunky dory. In fact the evil Canadian media was to blame (again) for even uttering such nonsense that the Coyotes were in trouble.

On that bolded part, we agree 100%

I know so many in Canada want more teams there. I do. But do the Leafs, Habs, Oilers, Sens, Canucks and Flames? I get the "rivalry" argument, I do. But do all of those teams truly believe that more teams in Canada will increase revenues for everyone? Or, might revenues diminish (even fractionally), getting spread around due to a 17%- 25% increase in the # of franchises in Canada?

I'll bite, and hopefully this nonsense will stop showing up here. The premise is the amount spent on the NHL in Canada is an absolutely fixed amount, regardless of the number of teams. Therefore a 7th team will split up a similarly-sized pie 7 ways instead of 6 ways. That is a very false premise.

Winnipeg is a 23 hour drive from Toronto. Probably slightly less to Calgary and Edmonton. Ticket sales at existing Canadian NHL arenas will absolutely not be impacted. The HNIC contract (and national Canadian TV deals) is spread evenly to all 30 teams, not just Canadian teams. It will not go down as a result of having Winnipeg in the fold. I'd like to see the Leafs allow a price decrease in their next local TV deals because Winnipeg has a team now too - won't happen.

The real question is whether the overall NHL revenue will increase if Phoenix moves to Winnipeg, and the answer is unequivocably yes. Will the national NBC / Versus deals decrease more than national Canadian deals will increase? That's almost physically impossible. Will Winnipeg rake in more ticket revenue than Phoenix? Yes, with 100% certainty. Will local Winnipeg TV contracts be worth more than the 9000 viewer-per-game Phoenix deal? You bet.

(And a 25% increase in Canadian teams would be 1.5 new teams. Maybe the Coyotes are going to split time with Saskatoon after all?)

 

[CGG]

Still no dates coming from the NHL

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/glendale-arrives-at-panic-stage-117393588.html

Bettman had this to say Thursday.

"(Goldwater) has put a cloud over the bonds, which is making it difficult to sell them. If it looks like the bonds can't sell because the clouds can't move, we're going to have to start exploring our other options," said Bettman.

Looks like everyone is jumping on the "Blame Goldwater" train. A coordinated effort between Hulsizer, COG and the NHL. I don't think it's ever been confirmed that Goldwater actually is driving up the price of the bonds. Maybe it's the legality issues they bring up that is truly driving up the price of the bonds. Maybe others would try to sue even if Goldwater disappeared. Maybe smart investors noticed the revenue projections are highly suspect.

Anyway, Bettman's quote is interesting, since it seems to indicate that selling bonds at a higher Goldwater-induced interest rate isn't an option. They either withdraw their objections or the bonds won't sell at all. Meaning the Hulsizer claim of an extra $100 million in costs is not gonna happen. The bonds either sell at "normal" rates (with no more threats from Goldwater) or they don't sell. Period.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Still no dates coming from the NHL

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/glendale-arrives-at-panic-stage-117393588.html

Bettman had this to say Thursday.

"(Goldwater) has put a cloud over the bonds, which is making it difficult to sell them. If it looks like the bonds can't sell because the clouds can't move, we're going to have to start exploring our other options," said Bettman.

This is the beginning of the end. Glendale & The NHL know it and are positioning themselves to have a patsy.

Goldwater might ruin this "deal"....but it was a brutal Hail Mary of a deal in the first place, people seem to forget that.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Wow ... I'm sick for a couple of days and I come back to billions more Coyotes posts. Madness.

I really hope this ends soon, and I think if the team moves to Winnipeg, everybody is going to come out of this unscathed except the CoG.

NHL: Went above and beyond to do everything possible to save the team in Glendale. (Looks good to southern fans, did their best, etc.) Moved the team back to Canada (looks good to Canadian fans, 'righting a wrong'). Plus, in TNSE, the league adds some very respectable (not to mention very wealthy) owners to its ranks.

GWI: Acted in the taxpayers' interest, according to their mandate. I'm sure these guys annoy people all the time doing what they do, but the people who support them will no doubt be very happy with their work enforcing the gift clause. I think as far as they're concerned, as long as they can prove they were doing their job and the CoG was, in fact, acting illegally, they're not too concerned with public perception.

Hulsizer: Did what he could, made an attempt to keep the team in Glendale, can act all despondent and sorry it didn't work out when the team moves. Fans like him because he tried. Now has a working relationship with the NHL, and an in should he desire to purchase another team in the future.

TNSE: Kept their mouths shut, followed the rules, got a team. Winnipeg is happy. Canada is happy. The universe becomes cosmically re-aligned.

CoG: Totally pooched.

 

[rj]

GWI: Acted in the taxpayers' interest, according to their mandate. I'm sure these guys annoy people all the time doing what they do, but the people who support them will no doubt be very happy with their work enforcing the gift clause. I think as far as they're concerned, as long as they can prove they were doing their job and the CoG was, in fact, acting illegally, they're not too concerned with public perception.

The horse has left the barn, but their overall point on communities shouldn't be spending public money to overly support private enterprise has been shown to be right be it bank bailouts or building arenas because Glendale spent all the money to start with, didn't get what they were expecting, and now have to spend more otherwise they're even more f#$&ed. At this point there's little difference between Glendale, Arizona, and Shelby, Montana, to borrow a historical analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dempsey_vs._Tommy_Gibbons

 

[Fidel Astro]

At this point there's little difference between Glendale, Arizona, and Shelby, Montana, to borrow a historical analogy.

No idea what you're talking about. What's significant about Shelby, Montana? (Remember, not everyone here is from the US).

Never mind, you added a link.

 

[Fugu]

Easy to say $70M isn't enough to demonstrate, "even the slightest bit of commitment to the market," when it's not your $70M.

Plenty of NHL owners have done exactly that. There is an appropriate price for the team in this location. Why let Glendale make up for the NHL overpaying in this market? (And they overpaid for obvious reasons.)

I'd like to ask you why you're concerned about Hulsizer's money but I don't recall any level of sympathy for Moyes? He lost more money on operating the team than Hulsizer will even bring to the table.

The total sales price being paid is $170M.

And it's not Matty's $100m-- hence GWI's 'interference'.

Looks like everyone is jumping on the "Blame Goldwater" train. A coordinated effort between Hulsizer, COG and the NHL. I don't think it's ever been confirmed that Goldwater actually is driving up the price of the bonds. Maybe it's the legality issues they bring up that is truly driving up the price of the bonds. Maybe others would try to sue even if Goldwater disappeared. Maybe smart investors noticed the revenue projections are highly suspect.

Anyway, Bettman's quote is interesting, since it seems to indicate that selling bonds at a higher Goldwater-induced interest rate isn't an option. They either withdraw their objections or the bonds won't sell at all. Meaning the Hulsizer claim of an extra $100 million in costs is not gonna happen. The bonds either sell at "normal" rates (with no more threats from Goldwater) or they don't sell. Period.

Ah, poor Gary. Big, mean old GWI won't let them divert public money to prop up a pro sports [for profit] franchise. Scandalous, really. City mayors and governments have a mandate to do whatever they want, with no oversight, debate, bidding, public meetings after full disclosure. Tisk. Tisk.

 

[King Woodballs]

Wow ... I'm sick for a couple of days and I come back to billions more Coyotes posts. Madness.

I really hope this ends soon, and I think if the team moves to Winnipeg, everybody is going to come out of this unscathed except the CoG.

NHL: Went above and beyond to do everything possible to save the team in Glendale. (Looks good to southern fans, did their best, etc.) Moved the team back to Canada (looks good to Canadian fans, 'righting a wrong'). Plus, in TNSE, the league adds some very respectable (not to mention very wealthy) owners to its ranks.

GWI: Acted in the taxpayers' interest, according to their mandate. I'm sure these guys annoy people all the time doing what they do, but the people who support them will no doubt be very happy with their work enforcing the gift clause. I think as far as they're concerned, as long as they can prove they were doing their job and the CoG was, in fact, acting illegally, they're not too concerned with public perception.

Hulsizer: Did what he could, made an attempt to keep the team in Glendale, can act all despondent and sorry it didn't work out when the team moves. Fans like him because he tried. Now has a working relationship with the NHL, and an in should he desire to purchase another team in the future.

TNSE: Kept their mouths shut, followed the rules, got a team. Winnipeg is happy. Canada is happy. The universe becomes cosmically re-aligned.

CoG: Totally pooched.

To me, this pretty well hits the nail right on the head...
every has done their "due diligence"

 

[puckhead103*]

here is a question....

can the COG assume ownership of the coyotes and run them by themselves?

something like public ownership like in green bay?

 

[rj]

here is a question....

can the COG assume ownership of the coyotes and run them by themselves?

something like public ownership like in green bay?

The city of Green Bay does not own the Packers, individual people do, a lot of which are Green Bay residents. As to whether that would work in this case even if the NHL allowed it, are there enough individuals in Arizona and elsewhere out there willing to come up with $170 million or whatever to buy the Coyotes and then put up with whatever finances the future brings in its current situation, be it making money or losing money? If you got 10000 people to agree to come together and buy the team, $170 million divided by 10000 comes out to $17000 per person buy-in.

 

[puckhead103*]

The city of Green Bay does not own the Packers, individual people do, a lot of which are Green Bay residents. As to whether that would work in this case even if the NHL allowed it, are there enough individuals in Arizona and elsewhere out there willing to come up with $170 million or whatever to buy the Coyotes and then put up with whatever finances the future brings in its current situation, be it making money or losing money? If you got 10000 people to agree to come together and buy the team, $170 million divided by 10000 comes out to $17000 per person buy-in.

i got a little confused between the two terms...

i'm wondering if bettman would co sign to allow coyotes fans to own stock of their own team as a way to keep them there.....................

i know bettman and BOG would rather see a team in phoenix than in winnipeg, i think they should support the publc ownership issue and may keep them there...

even though some members of the BOG would rather prefer the coyotes to be for profit, and not non-profit, hockey club....

 

[goyotes]

I have heard many interpretations of the Mayor's "press conference" yesterday. Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board. She asked for direct access to the Board, and was denied by the GWI staff (which is unusual since staff always takes direction from the Board in any organization). By going public through both the broadcast and print media (her own op ed piece in the AzRep), I view this as a clear shot across the bow not only to the GWI, but also a threat to the Board that they will be named in any suit.

In follow-up statements, the CoG did not rule out selling the bonds at a higher interest rate, nor has the CoG ever said the bonds cannot be sold under any circumstance. I'm not sure whether the CoG will "double down" and sell the bonds at an inflated interest rate, but clearly the Mayor has set forth two "damages" the City will likely claim as a direct result of the GWI's actions. Under scenerio one, the City will claim $500,000,000 in damages due to the loss of the Coyotes. Under scenerio two, the City will claim $100,000,000 in damages because of an inflated interest rate.

We can debate the strength of the City's cause (and I'm sure we will), but I speculate that the GWI has been put on notice of the City's claim, and now the Board of Directors can also determine for themselves that they will likely be named in a lawsuit as well. That may, or may not, get their attention and staff may, or may not, be getting some calls asking exactly what the strategy is with the current "four corners drill".

 

[rj]

i got a little confused between the two terms...

i'm wondering if bettman would co sign to allow coyotes fans to own stock of their own team...................

Don't think there's enough of them available to do so considering the price required. If the $170 million price holds for what the NHL would sell for, and say each investor to buy 1 share needs to put in say $250 which is doable for your average fan if they want to own a share for "support for the club", you're looking at 680,000 people that would need to buy in. The only teams in the NHL that could probably pull off such a number and even for them it might be a stretch (some people are fans, but don't care for necessarily owning the team they cheer for) are the Canadiens, Maple Leafs, and Rangers.

Now obviously in such a scenario, some people would own multiple shares. You could see say a run-of-the-mill lower-end millionaire doctor in Phoenix that likes the Coyotes saying "I'll put in $10000 for fun", which if the share price was $250, he'd buy 40 shares at that level. But even then at $10000 which is a substantial amount for most people, that's only 0.0059% of the buy price/ownership of the Coyotes. The Coyotes I don't think have enough fans that'd be willing to buy in for that strategy to work.

 

[Gump Hasek]

I'll repost what I've said in these threads several times previously. Corporations and governments most often announce bad news late on Friday afternoons in an attempt to beat the weekday news cycle; the theory being that many of the journalists are by that time gone for the weekend and as such the story receives less intense immediate examination.

I think that theory may well have been applicable prior to the days of 24/7 cable news programs and an internet full of home bloggers that regurgitate information. That said, bad news still seems to be announced regularly on late Fridays. Dreger said Jet fans would know their immediate fate as early as next week IIRC. This afternoon perhaps!

 

[rj]

I have heard many interpretations of the Mayor's "press conference" yesterday. Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board. She asked for direct access to the Board, and was denied by the GWI staff (which is unusual since staff always takes direction from the Board in any organization). By going public through both the broadcast and print media (her own op ed piece in the AzRep), I view this as a clear shot across the bow not only to the GWI, but also a threat to the Board that they will be named in any suit.

In follow-up statements, the CoG did not rule out selling the bonds at a higher interest rate, nor has the CoG ever said the bonds cannot be sold under any circumstance. I'm not sure whether the CoG will "double down" and sell the bonds at an inflated interest rate, but clearly the Mayor has set forth two "damages" the City will likely claim as a direct result of the GWI's actions. Under scenerio one, the City will claim $500,000,000 in damages due to the loss of the Coyotes. Under scenerio two, the City will claim $100,000,000 in damages because of an inflated interest rate.

We can debate the strength of the City's cause (and I'm sure we will), but I speculate that the GWI has been put on notice of the City's claim, and now the Board of Directors can also determine for themselves that they will likely be named in a lawsuit as well. That may, or may not, get their attention and staff may, or may not, be getting some calls asking exactly what the strategy is with the current "four corners drill".

So pretty much Glendale knows they lost and are preparing to sue to get their money back. Would they plan to sue the NHL (although I'm even more confident they'd lose that lawsuit than the Goldwater one)?

 

[borno87]

I have heard many interpretations of the Mayor's "press conference" yesterday. Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board. She asked for direct access to the Board, and was denied by the GWI staff (which is unusual since staff always takes direction from the Board in any organization). By going public through both the broadcast and print media (her own op ed piece in the AzRep), I view this as a clear shot across the bow not only to the GWI, but also a threat to the Board that they will be named in any suit.

In follow-up statements, the CoG did not rule out selling the bonds at a higher interest rate, nor has the CoG ever said the bonds cannot be sold under any circumstance. I'm not sure whether the CoG will "double down" and sell the bonds at an inflated interest rate, but clearly the Mayor has set forth two "damages" the City will likely claim as a direct result of the GWI's actions. Under scenerio one, the City will claim $500,000,000 in damages due to the loss of the Coyotes. Under scenerio two, the City will claim $100,000,000 in damages because of an inflated interest rate.

We can debate the strength of the City's cause (and I'm sure we will), but I speculate that the GWI has been put on notice of the City's claim, and now the Board of Directors can also determine for themselves that they will likely be named in a lawsuit as well. That may, or may not, get their attention and staff may, or may not, be getting some calls asking exactly what the strategy is with the current "four corners drill".

NOW that is some grade AAA1 speculation right there.

Here is how I see it, if the team leaves and CoG is considering whether to sue a case against GWI, are they not in the exact same scenario GWI has been in evaluating the MH deal? No real actionable evidence against GWI because the Gift Clause will have never have gone to litigation. How could it be argued that the interference case exists if if GWI never had the chance to validate their concerns? Unless of course CoG files for an injunction against GWI making those kinds of statements
I don't see how making a prepared statement and an opinion piece in a newspaper as evidence that interference takes place.

Now if CoG issues the bonds, GWI sues and loses the Gift Clause case.... now you may be on to something.

 

[Niagara67]

Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board.

IMHO, weak case. They would have to PROVE that the interest rates rose because of GwI's "interference" rather than simply being high because this was a high risk investment to begin with. Great way to waste even more taxpayers' money.

That would also give GwI an opportunity to expose more of the CoG's dealings as part of their defence ... i.e. - the deal was in violation of the constitution anyway.

 

[LeftCoast]

I have heard many interpretations of the Mayor's "press conference" yesterday. Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board. She asked for direct access to the Board, and was denied by the GWI staff (which is unusual since staff always takes direction from the Board in any organization). By going public through both the broadcast and print media (her own op ed piece in the AzRep), I view this as a clear shot across the bow not only to the GWI, but also a threat to the Board that they will be named in any suit.

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but 2 thoughts come to mind.

1. Litigation by the city would only create more uncertainty (and therefore risk) around the bond issue, so if this is indeed the City's strategy, it seems to be a scorched earth approach.
   
2. On the issue of damages, I'm not sure if its a valid legal argument, but a logical position of GWI would be that the City of Glendale (or more correctly, taxpayers) stands to incur greater damages if the high risk bond issue goes forward than if not.

 

[goyotes]

If you read the statement of the Mayor, the tortious interference claim has already occurred by the GWI sending out letters to underwriters and financial institutional investors claiming that the deal may be unconstitutional and threating to sue. That is classic tortious interference. The only question in my mind is did the GWI's letters go right up to the line, or pass the line? Have they sufficently "hedged" their allegations? I don't think so, but I will admit it is a litigable issue.

Suing the GWI doesn't mean the deal is over unless the CoG sues to recover damages for the loss of the Coyotes. They could sell the bonds, and sue for the increased interest rate. In fact, if the GWI does sue after the bonds are sold, I am confident that the CoG will countersue for damages. I'm sure the CoG can could line up a parade of underwriters and institutional investors that will say under normal circumstances, without the threat of litigation by the GWI, the bonds would have sold at X interest rate (hard to not agree with this given Illinois selling $3 billion in bonds last week and their financial problems outweigh the CoG's). I'm sure the GWI will point to causation and say there were other factors related to the interest rate or ability to sell, but aside from maybe people on this board, I doubt the GWI has any chance of prevailing on that defense. The fact is, the bonds are not selling because of the threat of litigation. Potential buyers who were contacted from the GWI will very, very likely say it was the GWI's letter that chilled their interest in the bonds. I mean, for after all, the CoG isn't selling junk bonds. The credit rating after the much publicized downgrade is still Aa2, and this offering was A1. That is a high grade investment rating.

 

[Duckhole]

I'm so depressed, now I know how jets fans felt.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

I'll repost what I've said in these threads several times previously. Corporations and governments most often announce bad news late on Friday afternoons in an attempt to beat the weekday news cycle; the theory being that many of the journalists are by that time gone for the weekend and as such the story receives less intense immediate examination.

I think that theory may well have been applicable prior to the days of 24/7 cable news programs and an internet full of home bloggers that regurgitate information. That said, bad news still seems to be announced regularly on late Fridays. Dreger said Jet fans would know their immediate fate as early as next week IIRC. This afternoon perhaps!

Normally I would agree, but I think if the deal dies/is already dead, COG will want to "kill" it on their own terms.

I think when the COG council agenda for Tuesday March 8th is released later today, we'll see a vote to allow Beasley to continue moving forward with the sale listed as an item. Then on Tuesday, the council claims that because GWI has hindered their attempt to sell the bonds, they have no choice but to vote against it and allow the Coyotes to leave.

IMO, the whole reason we've been hearing "two weeks" constantly throughout this whole saga is that it's always two weeks between possible COG council votes.

 

[rj]

IMHO, weak case. They would have to PROVE that the interest rates rose because of GwI's "interference" rather than simply being high because this was a high risk investment to begin with. Great way to waste even more taxpayers' money.

That would also give GwI an opportunity to expose more of the CoG's dealings as part of their defence ... i.e. - the deal was in violation of the constitution anyway.

Never underestimate a politican's sense of self-delusion and blaming others for failure.

 

[yotesreign]

I have heard many interpretations of the Mayor's "press conference" yesterday. Very likely because I am a litigator, the impression I got is that aside from the limited PR value, the Mayor was setting up the City's case for a tortious interference claim AND a D & O claim against the GWI Board. She asked for direct access to the Board, and was denied by the GWI staff (which is unusual since staff always takes direction from the Board in any organization). By going public through both the broadcast and print media (her own op ed piece in the AzRep), I view this as a clear shot across the bow not only to the GWI, but also a threat to the Board that they will be named in any suit.

In follow-up statements, the CoG did not rule out selling the bonds at a higher interest rate, nor has the CoG ever said the bonds cannot be sold under any circumstance. I'm not sure whether the CoG will "double down" and sell the bonds at an inflated interest rate, but clearly the Mayor has set forth two "damages" the City will likely claim as a direct result of the GWI's actions. Under scenerio one, the City will claim $500,000,000 in damages due to the loss of the Coyotes. Under scenerio two, the City will claim $100,000,000 in damages because of an inflated interest rate.

We can debate the strength of the City's cause (and I'm sure we will), but I speculate that the GWI has been put on notice of the City's claim, and now the Board of Directors can also determine for themselves that they will likely be named in a lawsuit as well. That may, or may not, get their attention and staff may, or may not, be getting some calls asking exactly what the strategy is with the current "four corners drill".

IANAL, so I don't know if CoG would have a case against GI if CoG doesn't sell bonds - although it wouldn't surprise me if someone who is a lawyer knows of a way to try. But just for the sake of spinning plates on a stick entertainment value, assuming the city could sue and win and get a judgement of $500 million plus against GI... how many cents on the dollar could they get even if the 'board' and staff of GI had to personally cover the damages? How many people comprise GI, and are they multi-millionaires? Is GI a billion dollar think tank that has a billion in cash and could pay an award of $500 million? THAT would surprise me - if they have that kind of jack in war chest.

I think the chances that suing GI will result collecting enough money to make a dent in the economic loss to the city if the team leaves are slim to none and CoG should be focusing on a way to complete this deal and not fantasizing about covering their losses by suing to tap into a GI war chest.

 

[goyotes]

IANAL, so I don't know if CoG would have a case against GI if CoG doesn't sell bonds - although it wouldn't surprise me if someone who is a lawyer knows of a way to try. But just for the sake of spinning plates on a stick entertainment value, assuming the city could sue and win and get a judgement of $500 million plus against GI... how many cents on the dollar could they get even if the 'board' and staff of GI had to personally cover the damages? How many people comprise GI, and are they multi-millionaires? Is GI a billion dollar think tank that has a billion in cash and could pay an award of $500 million? THAT would surprise me - if they have that kind of jack in war chest.

I think the chances that suing GI will result collecting enough money to make a dent in the economic loss to the city if the team leaves are slim to none and CoG should be focusing on a way to complete this deal and not fantasizing about covering their losses by suing to tap into a GI war chest.

The GWI very, very likely has D & O insurance, plus some professional E & O insurance for its lawyers. I would assume they have a minimum of a couple million in coverage. No way would it make the city whole. My point was the threat may get the boards attention. I sit on some boards in the Valley. If I read this, I would be all over the Board Chair to have a meeting so we can discuss whether, as a Board, we endorse the actions of the staff or if it is time to step in and say "enough is enough".

I think there is a real chance this is the CoG's ploy here. Will it have any effect? I sort of doubt it, but I don't discount it entirely either.

 

[PitbulI]

"(Goldwater) has put a cloud over the bonds, which is making it difficult to sell them. If it looks like the bonds can't sell because the clouds can't move, we're going to have to start exploring our other options," said Bettman. "... I'm hoping we can get this resolved. I'm not looking forward to the alternative solution if we have to go that route but we will if it comes to that."

Now I may be taking this out of context but this upsets me. He's not looking forward to it? Is that Ego/Attitude talking that he doesn't want Winnipeg back in the fold or is he being politically correct saying he doesn't want to pull the plug on Glendale? Or both?