Jump to content

Glendale City Council votes to end lease agreement with Coyotes


hf101

Recommended Posts

AJ is right and beat me to it. Craig Tindall made this happen when he followed in a long line of people who negotiate a venue deal on behalf of a city and then quit to work for the team for whom the brokered the deal. Anthony LeBlanc can huff and puff all he likes, but the moment he hired Craig Tindall, he let this be a possibility. It's also not very correct to say that this happening over $15M, but rather, $15M every year over the course of 15 years, which is $225M, which is a hell of a lot more than Coyotes ownership bought the team for in the first place. In other words: this deal sees Glendale buy IceArizona the team, and then some. The city has had to lay off 1/4 of its municipal workers while paying the team to stay there.

 

Two thing for me:

-What council in their right mind would continue the deal under those circumstances?

-It's about time a city was the one playing hardball in one of these deals, because there's certainly no benefit to Glendale (just like 99.9% of cities in any area deal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  Would anyone hear be surprised if Uncle Gary gave the City of Glendale 7 mill a year.....maybe this is what it was about all along, strong arming the NHL into paying up more money putting the city of Glendale in a more favourable financial position. After all, the Glendale city councillors must smell blood in the water....they *know* how desperate Gary is to keep the Yotes in Phoenix!!  Believe you me, Gary would gladly play half of this lease in order to not admit defeat. He will simply finance the deal though league money, claiming it brings stability to franchise that is worthy of saving...what a LOAD of crap!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Coyotes are breaching their contract, and are thereby creating hardships for the people of the city, it is absolutely right for the city to sever the contract. Their duty, first and foremost, is to the taxpayers and residents. Not to the fans, not to the players, and most assuredly not to the league or the team.

 

Agree - but what have the Coyotes done to break the deal?  It seems that they using this as the reason why they are cancelling the deal (from TSN.ca):

 

The departure of former city attorney Craig Tindall's from his position more than two years ago was central to the argument to cancel the agreement.

Tindall was asked to resign as city attorney in February 2013 by Weiers. Tindall left his position on April 1, 2013, but accepted six months of severance, meaning he was on the city payroll through Oct. 1, 2013.

The city and Coyotes reached their arena management deal on July 2, 2013, when Tindall, who had gone to work for the Coyotes, was still being paid by the city. 

The city in its vote Wednesday relied on state statute 38-511. That statute, which is included in the arena management deal, says that the state can cancel a contract within three years if anyone involved in negotiating or drafting the contract for the state or any public department, is an employee of any party to the contract (the Coyotes).

How is this breach of the deal a financial hardship?  To me, they are losing money and are using this as their "out".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ is right and beat me to it. Craig Tindall made this happen when he followed in a long line of people who negotiate a venue deal on behalf of a city and then quit to work for the team for whom the brokered the deal. Anthony LeBlanc can huff and puff all he likes, but the moment he hired Craig Tindall, he let this be a possibility. It's also not very correct to say that this happening over $15M, but rather, $15M every year over the course of 15 years, which is $225M, which is a hell of a lot more than Coyotes ownership bought the team for in the first place. In other words: this deal sees Glendale buy IceArizona the team, and then some. The city has had to lay off 1/4 of its municipal workers while paying the team to stay there.

 

Two thing for me:

-What council in their right mind would continue the deal under those circumstances?

-It's about time a city was the one playing hardball in one of these deals, because there's certainly no benefit to Glendale (just like 99.9% of cities in any area deal).

 

The Tindall issue is the "reason" they are citing.  But let's be honest - if they were making money off the deal the fact that Tindall now works for the Coyotes would not be an issue for them at all.

 

This is about the city of Glendale losing money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - but what have the Coyotes done to break the deal?  It seems that they using this as the reason why they are cancelling the deal (from TSN.ca):

 

The departure of former city attorney Craig Tindall's from his position more than two years ago was central to the argument to cancel the agreement.

Tindall was asked to resign as city attorney in February 2013 by Weiers. Tindall left his position on April 1, 2013, but accepted six months of severance, meaning he was on the city payroll through Oct. 1, 2013.

The city and Coyotes reached their arena management deal on July 2, 2013, when Tindall, who had gone to work for the Coyotes, was still being paid by the city. 

The city in its vote Wednesday relied on state statute 38-511. That statute, which is included in the arena management deal, says that the state can cancel a contract within three years if anyone involved in negotiating or drafting the contract for the state or any public department, is an employee of any party to the contract (the Coyotes).

How is this breach of the deal a financial hardship?  To me, they are losing money and are using this as their "out".  

 

 

 I can see a clear conflict of interest if Tindall negotiated the deal AND then was gainfully employed by the Yotes right after. Especially if his signing with the Yotes was overlapping at all with his city employment, actually this looks pretty close to a criminal act depending on who was signed and when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tindall issue is the "reason" they are citing.  But let's be honest - if they were making money off the deal the fact that Tindall now works for the Coyotes would not be an issue for them at all.

 

This is about the city of Glendale losing money. 

 

Are you re-capping my post or disagreeing with me?   lol

 

Yes, it's about the city losing money. Of course it is. Tindall and the Coyotes were just stupid enough to give council the out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What council in their right mind would continue the deal under those circumstances?

 

One that knew an "out" clause when the saw it?  Play it out for a year or so, if the deal does not look good for Glendale, then apply the out clause they always knew they had in their back pocket. Maybe even strong arm Gary into paying up another 7 mill or so towards the present lease....who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, the Jets were one of, if not the very first victim of a city not caving into a new publically funded arena. The fan's loyalty was never in question, it was always about where they were gonna pay and the Peg's city council's stance against corporate welfare, before we really knew what the term meant.

 

That's exactly the point I was making: The NHL is like a mooch. They will stick around as long as someone else is paying all of their expenses. As soon as a city gets a spine and tells them to pay their own way, then the NHL packs up its show and goes off to find another sucker. (And they try to play on the fact that people develop an attachment to the local franchise and use it as a form of hostage taking to strong arm their negotiations with the city.)

 

The fact is, the NHL takes money out of communities. They don't put anything back in. The "jobs" they create are part time, seasonal jobs, and there aren't many of them. What they cost taxpayers in arena funding and other subsidies is enormous by comparison. The NHL is like a fancy sports car: it's a toy for the wealthy elite. It doesn't ever pay you back. People throw money at it because you can afford to, not because it's an investment.  :)

 

The thing about Phoenix is, they genuinely don't care about hockey. So a smart local councilor would have told Bettman "adios" long time ago. The fact that they were foolish enough to keep propping this thing up is their own mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree - but what have the Coyotes done to break the deal?  It seems that they using this as the reason why they are cancelling the deal (from TSN.ca):

 

The departure of former city attorney Craig Tindall's from his position more than two years ago was central to the argument to cancel the agreement.

Tindall was asked to resign as city attorney in February 2013 by Weiers. Tindall left his position on April 1, 2013, but accepted six months of severance, meaning he was on the city payroll through Oct. 1, 2013.

The city and Coyotes reached their arena management deal on July 2, 2013, when Tindall, who had gone to work for the Coyotes, was still being paid by the city. 

The city in its vote Wednesday relied on state statute 38-511. That statute, which is included in the arena management deal, says that the state can cancel a contract within three years if anyone involved in negotiating or drafting the contract for the state or any public department, is an employee of any party to the contract (the Coyotes).

How is this breach of the deal a financial hardship?  To me, they are losing money and are using this as their "out".  

 

Read the article I posted. There are possibilities that the monies being paid by the city were being used to pay for the cost of purchasing the team, not to manage the arena. If substantiated, that is a material breach of the contract. The taxpayers are bearing a burden one way or the other, but if they aren't even getting what they're paying for, it's an even bigger problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not know this....you're gonna have to go ahead and give a age/location background for us....mmmm k?   LOL!

 

 

Yeah in 1991/92. The mother of my beautiful child was at Univ. of Washington. And I was along for the fun. Couldn't get a visa in the end and had to leave. It was fun. It was right when Grunge was taking off: Mudhoney's 2nd album was just out, Sub Pop records, Nirvana's Nevermind was out. It was a great time to be in Seattle. Went down to Portland for a few games. They were in rebuild mode, so not very good yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One that knew an "out" clause when the saw it?  Play it out for a year or so, if the deal does not look good for Glendale, then apply the out clause they always knew they had in their back pocket. Maybe even strong arm Gary into paying up another 7 mill or so towards the present lease....who knows?

 

When you're laying off 1/4 of your city employees while simultaneously are involved in a deal which sees you paying for a major league sports franchise for private ownership who can walk away anytime they feel like it, and the other side is dumb enough to let you out...... You get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah in 1991/92. The mother of my beautiful child was at Univ. of Washington. And I was along for the fun. Couldn't get a visa in the end and had to leave. It was fun. It was right when Grunge was taking off: Mudhoney's 2nd album was just out, Sub Pop records, Nirvana's Nevermind was out. It was a great time to be in Seattle. Went down to Portland for a few games. They were in rebuild mode, so not very good yet.  

 

 

 Hah, learn something new everyday....and yeah, that would have been a very cool time to be calling Seattle home. I'm guessing Alice in Chains was huge then also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I can see a clear conflict of interest if Tindall negotiated the deal AND then was gainfully employed by the Yotes right after. Especially if his signing with the Yotes was overlapping at all with his city employment, actually this looks pretty close to a criminal act depending on who was signed and when.

 

If Tindall had left on his own I'd agree.  But he was canned. OK - he was "asked to resign" and the only fact that made him an "employee" was that he was collecting severance.  He left his position with the city 6 months before the deal was finalized.  The article isn't clear when his employment with the 'Yotes started.  That said, the contract language is clear.  

 

Bottom line - I hope they move now.  I hope the NHL doesn't fight this (though it looks like they will). As someone else pointed out, why try to play in a city that doesn't want you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the point I was making: The NHL is like a mooch. They will stick around as long as someone else is paying all of their expenses. As soon as a city gets a spine and tells them to pay their own way, then the NHL packs up its show and goes off to find another sucker.

 

The fact is, the NHL takes money out of communities. They don't put anything back in. The "jobs" they create are part time, seasonal jobs, and there aren't many of them. What they cost taxpayers in arena funding and other subsidies is enormous by comparison. The NHL is like a fancy sports car: it's a toy for the wealthy elite. It doesn't ever pay you back. You throw money at it because you can afford to, not because it's an investment.  :)

 

 

So true, these are minimum wage part time jobs we are talking about.....these people are probably better just re-entering the job market, virtually anything would be pay better, prob a lot of people used their positions as a second income or kids just entering the job market. Some of the spin off jobs, like restaurants and specialty shops might benefit the city, but even those are tenuous at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tindall had been highly involved in crafting the lease deal for the previous potential owners, which was used as the backbone of the deal with the current owners. Tindall also consulted with the city on the deal after being fired. The severance and his actual employment status at the time of the signing are immaterial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tindall had left on his own I'd agree.  But he was canned. OK - he was "asked to resign" and the only fact that made him an "employee" was that he was collecting severance.  He left his position with the city 6 months before the deal was finalized.  The article isn't clear when his employment with the 'Yotes started.  That said, the contract language is clear.  

 

Bottom line - I hope they move now.  I hope the NHL doesn't fight this (though it looks like they will). As someone else pointed out, why try to play in a city that doesn't want you?

 

 

 Well, who is to say the city didn't fire Tindall with a wink, wink nudge to infiltrate the Yotes and give them their out.....stranger things have transpired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tindall had been highly involved in crafting the lease deal for the previous potential owners, which was used as the backbone of the deal with the current owners. Tindall also consulted with the city on the deal after being fired. The severance and his actual employment status at the time of the signing are immaterial.

 

So, you agree it's a clear conflict of interest, I can't come to any other conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the point I was making: The NHL is like a mooch. They will stick around as long as someone else is paying all of their expenses. As soon as a city gets a spine and tells them to pay their own way, then the NHL packs up its show and goes off to find another sucker.

 

The fact is, the NHL takes money out of communities. They don't put anything back in. The "jobs" they create are part time, seasonal jobs, and there aren't many of them. What they cost taxpayers in arena funding and other subsidies is enormous by comparison. The NHL is like a fancy sports car: it's a toy for the wealthy elite. It doesn't ever pay you back. You throw money at it because you can afford to, not because it's an investment.  :)

 

Yeah - not selling to owners who want to move the team and sinking $50,000,000 of your own dollars into the team is "mooching". SMH  :confused[1]:

 

Speaking of corporate welfare - maybe they can come up with a system where teams that have mismanged player personnel for the better part of the last half century can be given top 5 draft picks and the right to sign the best players because their fans are naive enough to pay some of the highest ticket prices around all of which eventually finds its way into the owner's pockets.

 

Talk about mooching.  :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Well, who is to say the city didn't fire Tindall with a wink, wink nudge to infiltrate the Yotes and give them their out.....stranger things have transpired.

 

Possibly.  Doesn't matter though.  The contract language is clear.  I wouldn't be surprised either if his severance included some form of a non-compete agreement which would also preclude him from going to work for the Coyotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly.  Doesn't matter though.  The contract language is clear.  I wouldn't be surprised either if his severance included some form of a non-compete agreement which would also preclude him from going to work for the Coyotes.

 

 Hell, I had to sign one of those, and I'm in health and nutrition....so I can imagine the City of Glendale considering a non compete clause to dot their I's and cross their T's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that it's clear, but the things I've seen in reading around seem to point to that. Assumedly, the current solicitor has provided sufficient input to the city to assure them that they're not in a very risky position here - municipal governments tend to be very risk averse when the threat of litigation exists. They probably hired a few more lawyers to review their case before coming to this decision. As I said before, though, I'm surprised that the Coyotes are threatening to sue for damages - typically, that's not allowed when a government entity is the defendant. There are some state laws that limit those protections, so maybe Arizona has rolled back some of that, but I've never seen it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


the current solicitor has provided sufficient input to the city to assure them that they're not in a very risky position here - municipal governments tend to be very risk averse when the threat of litigation exists.

 

 Totally agree, no way the Glendale council proceeds in this without some high priced lawyer telling them legal precedent is on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Alice in Chains was huge then also?

 

 

Yeah, and Soundgarden. Pearl Jam really took off a bit later, after I was already gone.

 

It was just a great scene overall, not just on the grunge/metal side. All the alternative bands that came out of Olympia, WA, for example, are still big faves of mine: The Melvins, Beat Happening etc. Probably not your thing those bands, but it was a cool scene.

 

I'm going to head over to the music threads and post some nostalgic stuff from that time. I have very fond memories of that time in my life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Podein25  It's really amazing how certain songs can throw you back to a time/era. Certain songs I hear I immediately think back to what I was doing, hanging around with ect. I find music provides a timeline for your existence....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...