LGR4GM Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I couldn't find the old thread and I got sick of looking http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-every-intention-leaving-glendale-2017/ “Simply put, the Arizona Coyotes have every intention of leaving Glendale as soon as practicable,” LeBlanc wrote in the letter. “By unilaterally breaking a 15-year signed management agreement with the team — a contract the Coyotes would have honoured for the length of its term — the Council effectively evicted us from our home.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I couldn't find the old thread and I got sick of looking http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-every-intention-leaving-glendale-2017/ Glendale, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale - they can move the team anywhere in that area and A) The team will still suck and B) They will only draw 7500 fans per game. Quebec City, paging Quebec City.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Propa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Just move them to Vegas and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I'm not entirely sure (okay, I know exactly why, but still) why Glendale is cast as the bad guy in this. A prior administration made an insanely bad deal, and now they're getting dumped on for having the temerity to refuse to bend over when told. Now, the goofiness of the way this has been handled, with the live streamed council meetings chock full of morons making loud noises is not a good look, but still. Tax dollars have no place in the pockets of sports franchises, directly or indirectly. I thought after the abject calamity with the baseball stadium in Miami a few years ago we'd all be aware of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Glendale, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale - they can move the team anywhere in that area and A) The team will still suck and B) They will only draw 7500 fans per game. Quebec City, paging Quebec City.... They have some good young players, and like the Sabres will be improving. They averaged 13,400 fans last season with a bad record. And Quebec isn't an option as long as the Canadian dollar is low. Just move them to Vegas and be done with it. The league would rather get $500 million from an expansion fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 The problem for Phoenix, like other warm-weather markets, is that half the people who go to Coyotes games are fans of other teams who just happen to live in Arizona. Tough to really establish anything with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 As long as they're buying tickets, the team can remain viable regardless of who they root for. Eventually if they start winning, they'll get more fans who root for them as has happened in Nashville, Tampa, and Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 I'm not entirely sure (okay, I know exactly why, but still) why Glendale is cast as the bad guy in this. A prior administration made an insanely bad deal, and now they're getting dumped on for having the temerity to refuse to bend over when told. Now, the goofiness of the way this has been handled, with the live streamed council meetings chock full of morons making loud noises is not a good look, but still. Tax dollars have no place in the pockets of sports franchises, directly or indirectly. I thought after the abject calamity with the baseball stadium in Miami a few years ago we'd all be aware of this. No. They're getting dumped on for not honoring the deal made by the prior administration. A new administration doesn't get to walk away from its predecessors' agreements, unless that type of option is built into the agreement. Similarly, if the team were sold to a new owner, the new owner couldn't just decide to break the lease and move to Vegas/Quebec/anywhere else that wanted to throw money at him/her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Glendale, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale - they can move the team anywhere in that area and A) The team will still suck and B) They will only draw 7500 fans per game. Quebec City, paging Quebec City.... If they do end up in Phoenix there is a very real chance that franchise will thrive. Good for their fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 No. They're getting dumped on for not honoring the deal made by the prior administration. A new administration doesn't get to walk away from its predecessors' agreements, unless that type of option is built into the agreement. Similarly, if the team were sold to a new owner, the new owner couldn't just decide to break the lease and move to Vegas/Quebec/anywhere else that wanted to throw money at him/her. Glendale's argument, which has a good deal of merit, is that they had the right to void the lease under AZ law regarding conflicts of interest in public contracts, as the city attorney who negotiated on behalf of the city was hired by the Coyotes 15 minutes later. Not a good look, at the very least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Glendale's argument, which has a good deal of merit, is that they had the right to void the lease under AZ law regarding conflicts of interest in public contracts, as the city attorney who negotiated on behalf of the city was hired by the Coyotes 15 minutes later. Not a good look, at the very least. 15 minutes, 8 months, same difference. Why quibble over details? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 15 minutes, 8 months, same difference. Why quibble over details? From what I can gather he was on the books for both at the same time for about 6 months... Also worth noting, it can be argued that losing / settling a lawsuit now will cost the city less money than actually honoring the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 From what I can gather he was on the books for both at the same time for about 6 months... Also worth noting, it can be argued that losing / settling a lawsuit now will cost the city less money than actually honoring the contract. Being paid severance, while on the books, does not in and of itself provide a conflict of interest. Glendale weaseled out of a contract. Whether that works out in their ST best interest or not, they still weaseled out of a legally binding good faith agreement pretty much before the ink was even dry. It is doubtful that it won't be a consideration for future negotiations between the city & it's vendors/ employees which can raise other costs to the city. It also will be interesting what they do to fill that soon to be empty mausoleum that they'll be maintaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Calling it "Weaseling" dismisses the obvious legal and ethical questions raised by the behavior of the Coyotes and the attorney in question out of hand. I don't think it's fair to do that. Nor, not knowing what the impact of the questioned behavior was, can we fairly assume the Coyotes are right and this was indeed done "in good faith." The statute mentioned above exists for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Calling it "Weaseling" dismisses the obvious legal and ethical questions raised by the behavior of the Coyotes and the attorney in question out of hand. I don't think it's fair to do that. Nor, not knowing what the impact of the questioned behavior was, can we fairly assume the Coyotes are right and this was indeed done "in good faith." The statute mentioned above exists for a reason. To the bolded, yes it does. That fact does not in any way necessitate that the council was using it for that reason. To your 1st paragraph, not calling it weaseling dismisses the obvious legal and ethical questions raised by the behavior of the Mayor and City Council as out of hand. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 In all honesty, you're about three millimeters removed from: "I know you are, but what am I?" with that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 In all honesty, you're about three millimeters removed from: "I know you are, but what am I?" with that one. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted May 18, 2016 Report Share Posted May 18, 2016 If they do end up in Phoenix there is a very real chance that franchise will thrive. Good for their fans. Agreed. If they're able to get a downtown arena they may become Nashville west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2016 I am all for moving the arena DT. From what I gather Glendale is 10miles or 20-30minutes outside of DT and most people do not live out that way? Is this correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted May 19, 2016 Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 I think this team, Arizona, is not moving any farther that Phoenix. But it is a soap opera leading up to that ultimate conclusion. Like one in Spanish that you can't understand. But my oh my the dramatics are something everyone can understand. Head turn, camera close up, hot take on smoking babe. Gracias. Everybody looks and applauds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 I never heard anyone use the term proper when defining city parameters until buffalonians started squaking about it a couple years back. Anyone know why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Glendale's argument, which has a good deal of merit, is that they had the right to void the lease under AZ law regarding conflicts of interest in public contracts, as the city attorney who negotiated on behalf of the city was hired by the Coyotes 15 minutes later. Not a good look, at the very least. Perhaps they had that right -- and as Taro said, whether they did have that right will depend on the facts and the law -- but that's not what you said initially. You said it wasn't fair to criticize the city for walking away from a bad deal made by the prior administration. That is a much different argument than the illegal-conflict-of-interest argument. From what I can gather he was on the books for both at the same time for about 6 months... Also worth noting, it can be argued that losing / settling a lawsuit now will cost the city less money than actually honoring the contract. This is also quite possible, and if so then it may have been the right decision by the city -- but it's a fairly Machiavellian and bad-faith decision that certainly deserves criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 I never heard anyone use the term proper when defining city parameters until buffalonians started squaking about it a couple years back. Anyone know why? I've never heard it unless in reference to the restaurant, Buffalo Proper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.