And we're back!
Started by Barrister, March 07, 2011, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2011, 05:59:23 PMQuote from: Jaron on March 07, 2011, 05:55:54 PMBB your sig is too large. Get rid of it or I'll report you to Ed Anger for signature re-education.Beeb is on my very short list of people I approve of on languish. Although this Jets shit makes me want to put my Walther PPK in my mouth and pull the trigger.
Quote from: Jaron on March 07, 2011, 05:55:54 PMBB your sig is too large. Get rid of it or I'll report you to Ed Anger for signature re-education.
Quote from: crazy canuckBB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.
Quote from: Jaron on March 07, 2011, 06:02:49 PMIs Tim growing on you?
QuoteBut while it seems certain the hockey side would thrive in Winnipeg, where pucks are as native as the prairie, the business side is less certain. Winnipeg is the eighth-largest TV market in Canada, behind even Quebec City, which also lost its NHL team in the mid-'90s and wants the league to return, and there are concerns about the population and corporate base. The MTS Centre – currently home to the American Hockey League's Manitoba Moose (the farm club for the Vancouver Canucks) – seats 15,015 and would be the smallest arena in the NHL.CBC.ca reported that the NHL has done several detailed analyses of the Winnipeg market, and according to a couple of sources, the league estimates revenues of about $70 million per season. That would be double the revenue generated by the Coyotes and about $20 million more than the revenue generated by the Atlanta Thrashers, another franchise with ownership issues that could move to Winnipeg. But it would still be the lowest among Canadian teams.
Quote from: katmai on March 07, 2011, 07:01:00 PM Ain't gonna happen beebQuoteBut while it seems certain the hockey side would thrive in Winnipeg, where pucks are as native as the prairie, the business side is less certain. Winnipeg is the eighth-largest TV market in Canada, behind even Quebec City, which also lost its NHL team in the mid-'90s and wants the league to return, and there are concerns about the population and corporate base. The MTS Centre – currently home to the American Hockey League's Manitoba Moose (the farm club for the Vancouver Canucks) – seats 15,015 and would be the smallest arena in the NHL.CBC.ca reported that the NHL has done several detailed analyses of the Winnipeg market, and according to a couple of sources, the league estimates revenues of about $70 million per season. That would be double the revenue generated by the Coyotes and about $20 million more than the revenue generated by the Atlanta Thrashers, another franchise with ownership issues that could move to Winnipeg. But it would still be the lowest among Canadian teams.
Quote from: sbr on March 07, 2011, 07:12:15 PMThe Nordiques moved to Colorado, right?
QuoteGoldwater Institute CEO Darcy Olsen's Statement on Rumored Glendale LawsuitSubmitted by goldwater on March 7, 2011 Printer-friendly versionAttachment Kind Size Attachment Kind Size Download January 25 letter to bond rating agencies.pdf PDF document 996.36 KB Darcy Olsen Goldwater Institute March 7, 2011 Saturday afternoon I learned from a reporter that the City of Glendale intends to file a lawsuit against the Goldwater Institute. We have not yet been served, but if the City files a lawsuit against the Institute, it will be frivolous and unsuccessful. The Goldwater Institute's efforts to obtain public records and to determine the constitutionality of the Coyotes deal advance the public interest and are fully protected by the First Amendment.Let me be clear: the Goldwater Institute will not stop this investigation.The Goldwater Institute files lawsuits when public officials abuse the law and all other options are exhausted. We also file only when we have all the relevant facts to properly assess a situation. Because Glendale continues withholding public documents, in spite of a court order to release this information to the public, our analysis of the deal remains incomplete.The City of Glendale has been under a court order to provide the Institute with all records and documents pertaining to the Coyotes sale since July 2009. On Thursday March 3 during a press conference, Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs said "Glendale has provided the Goldwater Institute with everything they have asked for." The statement was clearly misleading. During the following 36 hours, the City proceeded to release an additional 750 pages of documents to the Goldwater Institute.Glendale has been deliberately recalcitrant in providing public records. In one email City Attorney Craig Tindall specifically directed his deputy attorney to "play with" or "ignore" the Goldwater Institute's request seeking to view public records subject to the court order.The Institute has continued meeting with City staff and attorneys to discuss our concerns about the sale. In the last three months, Goldwater Institute attorneys and staff have met with and had phone conferences with Glendale and buyer Matthew Hulsizer at least a dozen times. In addition, the Goldwater Institute has extended an invitation to Mayor Scruggs, Mr. Hulsizer, and NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman to gather for a meeting that would be open to journalists.Because so much of this deal has been conducted behind closed doors and out of public view, we believe any future meetings or phone conferences should be conducted openly and transparently. We believe the media should be able to report first hand on the interactions between interested parties.We recognize that Glendale has dug itself into a financial hole by building the taxpayer-funded Jobing.com arena for a team that has proven financially unsustainable. However, the City must find a way to improve its financial situation within the boundaries of the law. Likewise, we hope the city can find a way to attract great sports teams like the Coyotes without the unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.The Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution prohibits gifts by subsidy, loan or otherwise to private individuals or corporations. Under the current structure of this deal, Glendale will send $100 million to Mr. Hulsizer to assist him in buying the team and will pay him another $97 million to manage the arena for the next five-and-a-half years. Giving public funds to the buyer of a sports franchise raises red flags under the Gift Clause.In Turken v. Gordon, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a city may provide financial support to a private enterprise only if it receives a tangible benefit of roughly proportionate value. That does not include indirect benefits, such as jobs or tax revenues, but only direct benefits that make the transaction a valuable contract rather than an illegal subsidy.The $100 million payment to Mr. Hulsizer is primarily in return for the sale of parking lot revenues by the team to the city. However, the City may already own a significant portion of those rights. If so, the city essentially is "selling" parking revenue rights to itself, which would be an obvious sham and a clear violation of the Gift Clause.The city insists the team owns the parking rights. Unfortunately, it has not yet been able to demonstrate that it does. It has identified numerous documents in support of its assertion, but they tend to show the opposite. Notably, the current agreement recites that "to the best of [the team's] knowledge, it was the intent of the City and Grantor's predecessors in interest in connection with the Arena Facility for Grantor's predecessors in interest to have the right to use and, to some extent, in other ways exploit 5,500 vehicular parking spaces on or in the immediate vicinity of the Arena Land." That is hardly the certainty required to demonstrate that at some point over the past ten years, the city transferred parking rights that are now contended to be worth as much as $100 million.Even if the team owns some or all of the parking rights, the value must be roughly proportionate to the compensation paid. The city has given the public the impression that it would use only parking revenues to repay the $100 million in bonds used to finance the payment to Mr. Hulsizer. However, when the draft bond statement was released, it was revealed that the city is pledging excise and sales tax revenues if necessary to repay the bonds. That is extremely significant, because it means that if the team fails again—at any point over the next 30 years—or if parking revenues are insufficient to repay the bonds, Glendale taxpayers will be on the hook to repay the bonds through their tax dollars. The financial consequences could be catastrophic.The city initially used two studies for the contention that parking revenues would be sufficient to repay the bonds, one by TLHocking & Associates and another by Walker Parking Consultants. We hired a national consulting firm to review those reports. Our consultant found that the city's reports relied on untenable assumptions and, even then, the projected revenues would be insufficient to repay the bonds, leaving the shortfall to the taxpayers.The Institute expended $7,000 for this evaluation, only to discover the city withheld another study by Walker Parking Consultants purporting to justify the payment to Mr. Hulsizer. We have not yet evaluated the new study as it was only recently provided to us, but the fact that the city found it necessary to pledge sales and excise tax revenues corroborates the view that parking revenues will be insufficient to repay the bonds.There is an easy solution to this problem. If Glendale and Mr. Hulsizer believe that parking revenues will be sufficient to repay the bonds, then it is Mr. Hulsizer, not the city, who should guarantee any revenue shortfall. That would prevent serious harm to the taxpayers and place the financial responsibility where it should be: with the owner of the team, rather than on taxpayers' shoulders. Taxpayers should not be asked to take a risk that the prospective owner is unwilling to take with his own money.Glendale asserts that because the Goldwater Institute has expressed concerns about the deal, it has caused the bonds' interest rates to rise. On January 25, 2011, Goldwater Institute attorney Carrie Ann Sitren sent a letter to various bond-rating entities (attached) stating that "the Goldwater Institute is currently investigating a potential legal challenge to the constitutionality of the lease" of the arena. The letter noted, "If the Institute were to initiate litigation on this basis and prevail, holders of bonds arising from the financing of the transaction could face the risk that the transaction would be held unconstitutional and void." Prospective bond purchasers must not be kept in the dark about potential legal risks, which would be akin to the seller of a home failing to disclose serious construction defects.We are not anxious to sue over this deal or any deal; to the contrary. But we are anxious for government bodies to follow the law. If this behavior can be subject to a retaliatory lawsuit by a legion of government attorneys, then journalists, bloggers, and regular citizens across the state are all at risk.The Goldwater Institute is doing what the City of Glendale should be doing on its own: working to protect taxpayers. There should be no need for an independent organization to take the city to court to ensure public documents are made public; the city should make public records public. There should be no need for the Goldwater Institute to file a lawsuit to block this deal because the city should not craft deals that violate the Constitution. Until the city does its job, the Goldwater Institute will be there, asking questions, exposing the truth, and filing lawsuits if and when such action becomes necessary.
QuoteMatthew Hulsizer running out of patience with CoyotesDAVID SHOALTSFrom Tuesday's Globe and MailPublished Monday, Mar. 07, 2011 7:49PM ESTLast updated Monday, Mar. 07, 2011 8:43PM EST5 commentsEmail Print/LicenseDecrease text sizeIncrease text sizeThe city of Glendale, Ariz., has decided not to take any legal action against the Goldwater Institute for now, according to a source, but Matthew Hulsizer says other NHL teams are beckoning and he cannot wait much longer to complete his purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes.A potential legal war between the suburban Phoenix community and the Goldwater Institute, a public watchdog group, is delaying the sale of municipal bonds that would back Hulsizer's purchase of the team from the NHL. The Chicago businessman is to get $100-million (all currency U.S.) from the bonds to put toward the $170-million purchase of the Coyotes from the NHL.MORE RELATED TO THIS STORYGlendale not filing lawsuit over Coyotes - for nowIs Winnipeg a viable NHL market?Winnipeg ready for its close up, tearful Heat, Cuban for tanking and moreThe bonds were supposed to go on sale two weeks ago but Goldwater lawyers issued warnings that the deal between Glendale and Hulsizer violates the state of Arizona's gift laws that prohibit excessive public subsidies to private enterprises. While the NHL has not set a deadline for the sale to Hulsizer before it considers selling the team to a group that plans to move it to Winnipeg, the Chicago businessman said Monday time is running out."We have been approached by other teams, yes," Hulsizer said, adding that he is not pursuing that interest "right now because we love Arizona."However, even though the NHL has not put a squeeze on the sale by imposing a deadline, Hulsizer said he needs to have the municipal bonds on the market soon.Some NHL governors said in an informal survey that the NHL could wait as long as its entry draft on June 24 and 25 before deciding to leave Phoenix in order to facilitate a move for next season. But Hulsizer is not prepared to wait that long."I don't think I have the patience to last months," he said. "Weeks, yes, months no."There was much speculation in NHL circles in the past few days about how much longer the NHL is prepared to wait. Some insiders feel the league has already decided to sell to the Winnipeg group and others think it could happen in the next week.NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly acknowledged there is a date where a decision will be needed in order to draw up a schedule for next season with Winnipeg in it and to handle other logistics. But, he added, "It's not one we have established, or quite frankly, that we are particularly focused on right now."There were hopes more talks between Glendale and Goldwater would produce a solution but Goldwater president and chief executive officer Darcy Olsen blasted the city's handling of the Coyotes sale. She said the institute has not filed its own lawsuit because Glendale officials have not complied with court orders to release information about the Coyotes deal."Let me be clear: The Goldwater Institute will not stop this investigation," Olsen said in a statement released Monday night. "Glendale has been deliberately recalcitrant in providing public records."Olsen said Goldwater will only take legal action once it has all the relevant records. But she added that the institute believes Glendale may already own the parking rights it plans to sell to Hulsizer."If so, the city essentially is 'selling' parking revenue rights to itself, which would be an obvious sham and a clear violation of the gift clause [in Arizona law]," Olsen said.Glendale officials did not respond to a request for comment.An ESPN.com report on the weekend said Glendale was planning to sue Goldwater for more than $500-million, which is what city officials are said to believe would be the cost to the city if the Coyotes move to Winnipeg. Olsen said, "We have not been served [by Glendale] but neither have we received word that the city plans to hold off."Some close to the situation feel that if Glendale proceeds with legal action against Goldwater it will set off a legal battle that would doom any hope of keeping the Coyotes in Arizona. "If they file, bring in the moving vans," one source said.However, Daly said a lawsuit filed by Glendale will have no effect on the future of the team, although he declined to say why.Under the proposed deal, Hulsizer will get $100-million from the sale of the bonds. He will also cover this season's estimated $40-million in losses by the Coyotes and Jobing.com Arena.In exchange, Glendale will get back the $25-million it put up with the NHL to cover this season's losses and the right to sell the parking around the arena. The worth of the parking is subject to much debate, with the Goldwater Institute accusing one of Glendale's consulting firms of inflating the parking revenue in order to help the bond sale.Those on the other side of the deal argue the parking is worth between $60-million and $80-million (although estimates from Glendale's consultants are higher) over the 30 years of the agreement and there are other benefits like naming and usage rights that will bring the total to more than $100-million once Glendale adds the $25-million it recovered from the NHL.There are signs the NHL is looking at Winnipeg. A report by CBC.ca said the league commissioned studies of the Winnipeg market that estimated a team in the MTS Centre, which seats 15,015 people, would bring in around $70-million in a season, which is about double what the Coyotes earn at Jobing.com Arena. However, the report said this would be the lowest revenue of the six current Canadian teams.
Quote from: Neil on March 07, 2011, 09:52:26 PMThey're forgetting to take into account the losses that a Winnipeg team would suffer to theft. Manitoba is full of Indians, and theft and crime is a way of life for them.
Page created in 0.031 seconds with 19 queries.