Ever since the news of Andrew Barroway’s purchase of a 51% interest in the Coyotes (expected to be ratified by the NHL’s Board of Governors) there have been questions about the original management agreement between IceArizona and the City of Glendale.
One of the questions that surfaced was would there be an opportunity to renegotiate the agreement. In reading the contract there does not appear such an opportunity. Technically Barroway is becoming the majority owner of the team and for now the arena manager remains the same.
The arena manager is responsible for the operation of the arena and for leasing space to the team. The issue is addressed in Section 5. Demise of Arena and Use Rights. In 5.1, Demise of the Arena it states, “The City hereby demises and lets to the Arena Manager, and the Arena Manager hereby takes and leases from the City, effective on the Closing Date, for the Term and upon the provisions (i) The Arena Facility…” In Section 5.2, Grant Use of Rights, it says, “In addition to the rights granted by the City to the Arena Manager in the other provisions of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Arena Manager, and approves the right of the Arena Manager to grant to the Team Owner, during the Term, the exclusive right and obligation to use and occupy the Hockey Event Spaces…”
In Section 6.2., Sublease of Exclusive Team Spaces, it says, “The Team Manager hereby subleases the Exclusive Team Spaces to the Team Owner…” The team is a subtenant of the arena. We know that Barroway is securing a 51% interest in the team but we do not know if he is also acquiring a majority interest in the arena management company.
Even if Barroway became a majority owner of the arena management company in Section 4.2.3, Arena Sub-Manager, “The Arena Manager may, from time to time, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to an Arena Sub-Manager…” There is no provision that I can find whereby a change in team ownership requires a renegotiation of the lease since: (1) the lease is with the arena management company and (2) the arena management company can sub-lease to an arena sub-manager without city approval as long as all duties and responsibilities continue to be met satisfactorily.
The other question that has been raised is the city’s ability to audit. A little background is in order. Under the team ownership of Ellman and Moyes the city received financial reports but had to accept them without any corroboration. This eventually became problematical for the city. City Council wanted a mechanism whereby it could verify what the arena manager was reporting in terms of revenues and costs associated with the arena’s management and operation. Hence Section 8.16, Financial Reports and Section 8.17, Audits were incorporated into the agreement. Financial reports must be submitted to the city monthly, quarterly and annually. To ensure the veracity of the reports submitted, in Section 8.17.1, “The City shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of the management and operation of the Arena (or any part thereof) and the Account Records (or any part thereof) and the Team Owner Records (or any part thereof) by City Staff or by an independent certified public accounting firm selected by the City.” This section clearly grants the city the right to audit not just arena manager financial records but financial records of the team as well.
Keep in mind that this agreement was devised by attorneys and as a result, their interpretations of the terms can vary. That’s how they earn their fees…by arguing exactly what a term or provision of a contract actually means. They could argue how many gnats are on the head of a pin.
As a result you can be sure that every sentence within the agreement can be disputed and argued by attorneys. On the face of it, it appears the city has no legal right to renegotiate the management agreement with IceArizona. IceArizona would have to agree to do so voluntarily and that’s not going to happen. However, the city does have a legal right to audit manager and team financial records and to thereby confirm the revenues and expenses that are reported to it.
© Joyce Clark, 2014
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Joyce,
How ever you read it…
Glendale is not going to get kissed afterwards.
While it may be true that the new ownership structure does not legally require anyone to renegotiate the terms of the lease, the financial reality of the Coyotes has been considerably transformed and the citizens of Glendale and the local ice hockey fans have every right to request a more equitable deal.
Perhaps the biggest factor at play is the possibility that Mr. Barroway’s infusion of cash has allowed the team to retire its loan from the Fortress Investment Group. This would provide substantial relief to the Coyotes bottom line and this good fortune should be shared with the city of Glendale. Glendale’s $15 million annual payment to the Coyotes has been going directly to Fortress and in return Glendale has been the recipient of a number of the team’s revenue streams. With Fortress out of the picture would it not be easier now for Glendale to simply pay the Coyotes a flat arena management fee and let the Coyotes keep all of the revenue they generate from ticket sales, parking, etc.?
At his press conference Gary Bettman condescendingly scoffed at this suggestion with his signature arrogance but if the NHL truly takes the long term health of Glendale and the Coyotes to heart then they should do their part to ensure that the city remains solvent and not continue to burden it with an untenable lease. To their credit IceArizona has seen fantastic growth in their investment here but to be fair, this windfall would not have been possible without the sacrifice of the taxpayers of Glendale. Both Mr. Gosbee and Mr. Leblanc have called their relationship with the city a “partnership” and have stated that the success of the Coyotes is tied directly to Glendale. If they genuinely believe that, then they should also act that way and invite the city to benefit from their new wealth.
It would also seem to me that the other amendment now possible would be the removal of the out clause. At the time of the lease negotiations Mr. Gosbee and Mr. Leblanc claimed the out clause was only to be included at the insistence of their creditor, Fortress. Again, if Mr. Barroway’s arrival has eliminated that entity from their business then presumably he could also eliminate the out clause it imposed. The Coyotes ownership has repeatedly claimed they will not use the clause and find its mere presence negatively impacts fan support; city councillors fought against it and, of course, hockey fans would love nothing more than to see its removal. At this point who exactly requires this clause? If at this point nobody wants it in the lease, it should be very easy to amend.
If the new Coyotes ownership is serious about its commitment to this team and to the community, then renegotiating its lease with Glendale would go a long way to prove it.
Jeremy…excellent synposis and rational approach..unfortunately had there been no out clause I don’t think Barroway would have been nearly as interested and I have no illusions that he is willing to give it up now. If money continues to be lost at a high rate this is his ticket out to greener pastures. As for the COG, I don’t see Mr. 51% allowing substantial changes..he may throw them a bone but it will only be for cosmetic and PR purposes.