Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

So many questions…so few answers

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 20, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , | 8 Comments

As of this date the public does not know the status of the Jobing.com Arena management RFP that Council directed be used. Has it been issued? What are the specific criteria within the RFP?  Inquestion 2 addition to the issuance of an RFP Council directed a simultaneous track to pursue negotiations with potential buyers. Has there been any confirmation of a consultant hired to negotiate with any and all potential buyers of the team? What is the cost of this new consultant? Who determined the direction given to this consultant?  What was the specific instruction? Where are Mayor Weiers’ “mystery buyers”? Has the City Manager talked with them? Word on the street is there really aren’t any. Do they really exist? What is the City’s time frame for resolution of the Coyotes ownership situation? Is there a time frame?

In addition to the cloudiness surrounding the status of multiple tracks for management of the arena, word has it that Mayor Weiers has not abandoned his scheme to issue four separate contracts for question 1the management of Jobing.com arena.  If true, someone should advise the Mayor that his scheme is the surest way to lose the Coyotes team. Perhaps he knows that already and it is his way of publicly professing support while killing them and Westgate off gently. So, Mayor, ‘fess up. Do you really, really want the team to stay and Westgate to thrive? If so, please explain just how this idea of four separate management contracts will attract any buyer of the team.

And where, oh where, has the NHL gone? All we heard after the deadline for the Greg Jamison deal had passed was the NHL oft repeated and perfunctory comment saying they continue to work with confusion 4the City to secure a buyer for the team. All we saw was the granting of another extension by the City to the NHL to manage the arena until the end of the season. Now that the lockout is over it seems that they are consumed with realignment of the league. I suppose after that there will be another pressing issue to consider. The most pressing issue to be resolved is the sale of the Coyotes to a buyer committed to keeping the team in Glendale long-term. It’s been 3+ years. It’s way past the time for the NHL to focus itself on this issue and this issue alone. It would be refreshing to hear from Mr. Bettman that he is committed to selling the team by the end of this season. NHL, do you hear us? Don’t you think it’s time to reveal your plan for the Coyotes?

So many questions but so few answers… It’s time for the City of Glendale and the League to provide some as the real stakeholders, the team, the fans and the citizens of Glendale remain in limbo.

Enjoy my version of the team’s Wheel of Fortune. I suppose if you could interactively spin it, it’s result mirrors all of the speculation out there.

Coyotes Wheel Of Misfortune

Coyotes Wheel Of Misfortune

If you enjoy this blog and would like to receive emails when new ones are posted please visit the bottom right side of this page and sign up to Subscribe.

copyright

SkeeteEver since former City Manager Ed Beasley left, and perhaps before then…whoTindall knows?…there had been polite distain between Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete and City Attorney Craig Tindall. It came to a head when both men were considered for Interim City Manager. Each had their supporters among the then sitting Council but it was Skeete who prevailed and captured the assignment. As a former councilmember I had opportunity to see the divisiveness first hand.

It now appears that their mutual disdain may have grown to the point where it impedes the operation of the City. Rumors have flown that documents – think Coyotes documents – that needed confusion 3timely action often languished on a desk denying one or the other an opportunity to take action. Some say these actions, if occurring, are designed to make one or the other “look bad” and to destroy the current Council’s reliance and confidence in one or the other. It may have also provided an opportunity for certain people, within and without the organization, to use this circumstance to further their own agendas. These men need to visit the woodshed and be made to understand that such actions are unprofessional at the very least.

Many within Glendale government rely upon these men to insure that operations run smoothly. Theconfusion 2 City Council relies upon their work for information in their decision making processes. If two of the City’s most important managers are unable to work as a unit it creates confusion for everyone.

blog disclaimer 2

I hope you have enjoyed my commentary to date. If you would like to be notified by email when they appear go to the bottom right of this page and sign up to Subscribe By Email for notifications.

copyright

Cornfields rippling

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 19, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 5 Comments

Rumors are like ripples in a cornfield. They are ephemeral, but they do indicate which way the wind is blowing. This little gem of thought comes from the book Aliens Adored by Susan J. Palmer.
In the absence of fact rumors grow and develop a life of their own. It must be Newton’s or somebody’s law that when a vacuum is created it will quickly fill with rumor and speculation.

Skeete

Horatio Skeete

The newest…well as of this morning…rumor has it that Interim City Manager Skeete may be using Beacon Sports Capital, www.beaconsportscapital.com, as the City’s negotiator with any and all groups/individuals who wish to buy the Coyotes and secure the arena management contract.

Sherwood

Gary Sherwood

It was clear in the February 5 City Council workshop that Councilmember Gary Sherwood called for a negotiator but there was certainly no audible support offered by the other Councilmembers and there was absolutely no direction given by a majority of Council. If it turns out to be true, the use of Beacon Sports may have been an independent action by Interim City Manager Skeete, as there was a plea by CM Norma Alvarez to Mayor Weiers to relinquish his information about the many potential buyers with which he claimed personal contact.

Or perhaps direction may have been given in the less than transparent executive session following that workshop. Rather oddly, objection to executive session decision making has been a recurring theme championed of CM Norma Alvarez and the notion of transparency was a campaign platform for newly elected CMs Ian Hugh, Sammy Chavira and Gary Sherwood. Go figure.

If this latest speculation has indeed occurred where is the public announcement coupled with  revelation about the cost to the City for this new consultancy contract? As a former CM, I seem to remember the need for a vote to hire a consultant unless public direction at workshop is given. I also seem to remember Councilwoman Alvarez’ two years of railing about the City’s use of consultants. Where is her outrage now or was she missing from Council yet again?

Why Beacon Sports? A long standing rumor is that they were involved in the BeaconMoyes bankruptcy. If that is true then what was their role during the bankruptcy? The sports industry is a tightly knit community and there is more than one source out there suggesting that Jerry Reinsdorf’s son Michael, International Facilities Group (IFG) Managing Director, www.ifgroup.cc, may have suggested the use of Beacon Sports to either Mayor Weiers, Interim City Manager Skeete or City Attorney Tindall.

IFGIFG was hired by the City to manage the construction of Jobing.com arena. Beacon Sports was hired by the City to prepare a report issued on February, 2011 that provided a rationale for the Hulsizer deal and the City’s purchase of parking rights for $100M. It almost sounds incestuous, doesn’t it? Does Michael Reinsdorf’s suggestion to use Beacon Sports, which might have been acted upon, give Jerry Reinsdorf and John Kaites an inside track on purchasing the Coyotes?

If any of the above speculation turns out to be true, I ask you.. is this any way to run a circus…er…City?
Check back later today for more rumor mongering after I winnow through the sudden spate of opinions and secret whisperings.

copyright

circus 1 A

I suspect by now everyone has learned of Mayor Weiers’ idea of splittingcircus 1 B the lease management agreement for Jobing.com Arena into 4 separate management agreements. One would be for “entertainment”. I assume it means non-hockey events. The second would be hockey. The third would be “education”. Your guess is as good as mine as to exactly what that means. The fourth would be “cleaning”.

circus 1 CSo now the arena would have 4 managers…er, czars. Lots of generals and very few, if any, soldiers. Picture this. Hockey plays on a defined schedule. The entertainment czar has a dispute with the hockey czar or education czar because there is a conflict as to who gets what night. Or there’s acircus 1 D conflict between the entertainment czar and the cleaning czar because the floors are sticky from soda residue or the restrooms are not spiffy. Does the NHL reschedule the Detroit Red Wings or others until the 3 other czars have reached resolution of the disputed issue?

What to do? Call in a mediator? My goodness it could take weeks, possibly even months to settle disputes. In the meantime, the place gets dingier and nights go unused by anyone. Is this any way to run a business? And of course, the larger question is – to what purpose?

circus 2This situation calls for a czar over all the czars and the creation of yet another layer as a manager to manage the four managers would then be needed. So now Glendale would have 5 contracts to award rather than just one. Spreading the largess in a greater…well…arena, so to speak. Remember what Anthony LeBlanc said to the media not too long ago? He said the deal to be attractive to a potential buyer would have to be very similar to the deal that has been on the table. Sounds to me as if he’s referring to the Jamison deal.

Why 4 separate management contracts? The speculation abounds. One theory is that it is a means of courting more councilmember support for a deal. The award of an education contract may satisfy Councilmember Chavira who is big on education. So big he ran on improving education not realizing the City of Glendale is separate from Glendale school districts and has no control over them. Remember his campaign pledge to work to “fully fund Head Start,” a federal program? Having educational opportunities at Jobing.com arena might assuage that embarrassment and do the trick. Although Glendale taxpayers are probably not in the mood to fund yet another city fiscal responsibility not specified in the City Charter.

Then there’s the entertainment contract award. Remember the Phoenix Monarch Group (PMG)? Councilwoman Alvarez brokered a meeting between them and the former Mayor Scruggs and Former Councilmember Lieberman. Opening the door for them to bid may cause Alvarez to move away from her staunchly negative position on any deal for the arena.

There may be a certain appeal to the idea of offering 4 arena management contracts for the Mayor. For during his election campaign just a short 3 months ago his position was that the only way the team could stay was if it didn’t cost the taxpayers of Glendale. He’s made it quite clear that he thinks the Jamison deal was bad for Glendale taxpayers and the only good deal is one that doesn’t hurt them. He’s put himself in a position making it difficult for him to support Mr. LeBlanc’s assertion that any new deal that works would have to be very similar to the Jamison deal. Or by way of another theory, perhaps it’s his way of signaling to all that he is, indeed, in charge. After all, he needs to place his imprint on some issue to demonstrate that he is king…er…president…er…chief. Well, at the very least that he is the boss.

This entire scheme appears to be unorthodox… in fact, quite bizarre…but who knows? Stranger things have happened in Glendale.

copyright

February 14…End of Day Comments

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 15, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , | 10 Comments

Mike Nealy

Mike Nealy

Don Maloney

Don Maloney

Just listened to KTAR 620 radio interview with Mike Nealy, COO of the Phoenix Coyotes. He is a class act as is Don Maloney, General Manager and Dave Tippett, Head Coach. We are very fortunate to have these men running the organization. They are the right men for the right time.

Dave Tippett

Dave Tippett

 

 

 

Joyce1  B&W pixels Sept 1 2012Heard on some hockey board there are questions as to whether I am writing this blog and that perhaps it is being “ghosted.” For all those speculators out there, I am indeed writing this blog and couldn’t be happier in the freedom I now have to express myself…unfiltered.

 

copyright

My tale of two cities

Posted by Joyce Clark on February 14, 2013
Posted in City of Glendale  | Tagged With: , , , , | 7 Comments

George Santayana in his Reason in Common Sense, vol. 1 said, “Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” The past for us includes Hartford, Connecticut and the NHL WhalersPeter Karmanos.
In 1994 Compuware CEO Peter Karmanos bought the Whalers. It was the beginning of the end for the team in Hartford. Karmanos would not have bought the Whalers if he hadn’t been confident that he could move them. The team’s low attendance history is likely what gave Karmanos that confidence. Prior to his purchase attendance had dropped to less than 11,000. With low attendance numbers, the Hartford franchise was a prime takeover target for someone looking to relocate.

Efforts by former Connecticut Governor Rowland to keep the team were half-hearted at best. His eye was on the prize and that prize was the New England Patriots’ announcement of proposed relocation. Efforts by the fan base to increase attendance figures were dismissed by Karmanos. The NHL was focused on extending its presence into non-traditional markets in the South and West. It became the perfect storm and by 1997 – in three short years – the Whalers left Hartford.
Fans were angry and felt betrayed. Their feeling was akin to dealing with a death in their family. It was an intangible cost difficult for many to comprehend. Hartford lost its sense of pride and the national recognition that comes with a professional sports team.
The economic impact to Hartford and its Civic Center proved to be substantial. Immediately the hartfordciviccenter (2)Civic Center lost over half of its bookings. Dependent on events to survive, the loss of the Whalers created long-term economic repercussions throughout its downtown and beyond. Loss of the team caused merchants and businesses in the Civic Center mall (home to the arena) and elsewhere downtown to close. It meant cutting wages and losing jobs for hundreds of people and it depressed the city’s commercial real estate market.
The Hartford Town Council poured millions of dollars into the area in an attempt at revitalization only to meet with limited success. The jewel of its downtown, the Civic Center, would never shine as brightly as it had when the Whalers played there.
It’s an instructive tale, isn’t it? Glendale, at this time and in this place, is at a crossroads. It can become another Hartford or it can commit to keep the team. It rests on a simple realization that some of Glendale’s elected officials have yet to accept. Sports venues, in and of themselves, do not make money. Their economic impact is derived from the businesses that locate in and around the venue, the new development that is attracted and the long-term value they bring to adjacent commercial markets. They are job creators and the wages paid have a ripple effect throughout the community.
If Glendale’s leaders will not commit to an investment to keep the team for the next 20 years then city hall 2Glendale will face sudden economic death of a substantial portion of its community. Chasing a deal with a limited life span of 5 years does nothing to build a committed fan base or to build long-term success for the arena, the area…or the team. It merely turns the death of relocation into a protracted and tortuous one.

copyright

jobing.com arenaWhat does it cost to run an arena like Glendale’s Jobing.com? You would have better luck in searching for the Holy Grail than in gathering this kind of information. A majority of sports venues nationally are publicly built and privately run. In a few cases where the venue was financed by a public-private partnership there is usually a mechanism to repay the private entity for its initial investment in the construction of the facility. The private entities that actually operate and maintain these venues consider their information as proprietary.

There are two organizations that might be able to shed more light, the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) and the International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM).  I have learned that the IAVM conducted a survey of the operating expenses of sports venues throughout the country. It was due for release in December, 2012. However, one must be a member of this organization to access the survey. Alas and alack, I am not. If there are industry-wide benchmarks for sports venue operating and maintenance costs they are not available.

However, we can look at the following report, Comparison of Operating Costs for Similar Arenas, issued January, 2012. It was prepared by TLHocking & Associates LLC for the City of Glendale. Some will immediately discount the information it contains because it was a commissioned study paid for by the City and therefore it must be biased in favor of making a case for the City. Consultancy firms rely upon their reputation in their field to be considered for work. They make every effort to protect the integrity of their work. The City used TLHocking when considering the construction of the arena but I believe the firm tried to present facts without interpretation in this survey.

I did want to offer some quotes from page 2 of the study, “The information on comparative arena costs provided in this report was gathered from research of public information and relevant websites as well as from information provided voluntarily on a confidential basis by the representatives of specific venues.” And “…this report reflects the operating costs only without any offsets of operating revenues or contributions and/or subsidies from other parties

Arena No. 1 is publicly owned and privately operated. It is unnamed because its information is proprietary. It has a single anchor tenant an NHL hockey team and has about the same seating capacity as Jobing.com arena. Its figures reflect total annual operating costs                                                            including non-hockey events (TLHocking, p.3).

question mark

Calendar Year                       Annual Operating Costs

2007                                         $17,128,903

2008                                         $19,662,754

2009                                         $19,429,994

2010                                         $14,655,899

2011 Estimate                           $16,610,087

2012 Budget                             $16,538,291

 

nationwide-arenaNationwide Arena was privately financed and is managed by a contract with Ohio State University. The costs range from a low of $10.1M to a high of $13.8M annually.

The Sacramento Entertainment and Sports Complex is publicly owned and privately operated.  The costs range from a low of $11.8M to a high of $14.9M annually (TLHocking, pp. 4-5)

On pages 5 and 6 of the TLHocking study it describes Conseco Fieldhouse, home to the Indiana Pacers. The TLHocking study obtained a 2010 major study prepared by Hunden Strategic Partners entitled “Impact of the Indiana Pacers.” It demonstrated that the Pacers were important to the venue and stated that the operating costs with the Pacers averaged $17.4M a year and without the Pacers averaged $21.1M a year. But the more relevant part of the Hunden study created aConseco_Fieldhouse benchmark cost for running an arena based on the cost per seat. The HSP study was based on NBA facilities but it is also relevant for NHL facilities.  The TLHocking study on page 6 quotes from the Hunden survey, “HSP studied a number of large, NBA facilities (or those that are NBA-ready) and observed that revenue and expenses vary but generally follow a line with an average $777 per seat with an average deviation of seven percent, suggesting a reasonable operating expense per seat of $722 to $831 per seat. The estimated expenses at Conseco are $819 per seat, six percent above the average of this sample and within the average range of costs.”

The use of a per seat cost seems to be the most accurate measure of arena operating costs. Based upon the figures used in the HSP study using the seating capacity of Jobing.com publiclyLiberty-Seat- listed as 17,799 and an average cost per seat of $777 the cost of operating Jobing.com would be $13,829,823. It then seems reasonable to peg any lease management agreement for Jobing.com arena at $14M annually with some kind of CIP escalator included.

I promised to offer information on the MOU for the Seattle Sports and Entertainment Facility. That will have to wait for another day.I have done enough research for today.

copyright

 

jobing.com arenaFor months on end during the campaign of 2012, Glendale citizens were told by candidates for elected office, the Goldwater Institute, the opposition to any deal in the form of Ken Jones, et.al., and the media that Glendale would not be paying any Coyotes team buyer/owner a management fee but rather it would be a subsidy to prop up team losses. After all, if all of these entities said that, it must be true.

Oh really?
Having dealt with the ongoing Coyotes saga since Jerry Moyes declared bankruptcy in 2009 (after all, he asked the City for a management fee that would really cover team losses, didn’t he?) I have collected all kinds of information on arena management fees. In fact what I have to share with you may be considered downright boring. So, if you have trouble sleeping at night this could be your cure.
Let’s begin our Arena Operations and Maintenance Course 101 with the management deal between the City of Glendale and Greg Jamison. Not the latest deal renegotiated between the City and Jamison that would have dropped the management fee to $6M for this year but the original deal before finances in the City were discovered to be bad…very, very bad.

Year by year it went like this:                                         COG Ls Mgmt Agree 2012
Year 1……….……………….$17 million
Years 2 thru 4…………….…$20 million
Years 5 thru 7……………….$18 million
Years 8 thru 11………………$16 million
Years 12 thru 14…………….$15 million
Years 15 thru 19………….…$10 million
For an average of $15 million a year.

All of this nifty information can be found in a 90 page document entitled Arena Lease and Management Agreement by and among City of Glendale, an Arizona municipal corporation (the “City”) and Arizona Hockey Arena Manager, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Arena Manager”)and Arizona Hockey Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Team Owner”) Dated as of _____________, 2012. The title is almost as long as the document and one of several documents related to the City Council originally approved lease management agreement in June of 2012.

Would the City have received ANY revenue in return? Yes. The team would pay a base rent of:
Years 1 thru 5 –     $500,000 per year
Years 6 thru 12 –   $650,000 per year
Years 13 thru 19 – $800,000 per year
(pp. 49-50, Sec 10.1.1. – 10.1.6.)
If you think that’s not very much, read on. Later we will take a look at the University of Phoenix Stadium, the arena’s southern neighbor.

The City would also have received a City surcharge per ticket of:
Years 1 thru 5 of $2.75 per ticket
Years 6 thru 19 of $3.00 per ticket
(p. 48, Sec 9.1.2.a a and b)
At an average attendance of 10,000 per night for 40 nights at $2.75 per ticket, that’s an additional $1.1M per year and at $3.00 per ticket it’s $1.2M per year. Perhaps you consider this to be chump change.

Then there are the intangibles that are more difficult to estimate. In a recent news article of Nov. 13, 2012 entitled Glendale businesses cope with games lost to NHL lockout by Sarah Pringle of the Cronkite News, Aaron Hernandez, Manager of McFadden’s, stated that his restaurant was losing between $18,000 to $25,000 in revenue per hockey game missed. At a city restaurant tax rate of 3.2% the City loses approximately $23,040 of sales tax revenue for 40 nights of hockey. And that’s just ONE restaurant. Multiply that figure at the Yard House, Kabuki, Margaritaville and the dozen or so other restaurants located at Westgate. Now add another figure from the same news report. The City loses approximately $60,000 per game from the arena alone in sales tax revenue. For 40 games the City would have realized another $2.4M. I cannot even begin to estimate the number of room nights lost and their sales tax impact. The numbers are beginning to grow. Oh, I almost forgot. The City would also have received 15% of the sale of arena naming rights.

After renegotiation with Mr. Jamison, the lease management agreement became even better for the City. It included penalties for games not played in the arena, set a minimum number of events and added an incentive for events achieved over the minimum number. However, my reasoning for looking at the original agreement is that I have a feeling that we may see something very similar if there is an Anthony LeBlanc/Matthew Hulsizer deal.

So, to answer Councilwoman Alvarez’ persistent question, “Does the arena make any money?” The answer, dear woman, is “yes.” What she failed to ask is, “Is the arena profitable for the City?” The answer is clearly “no.”

UofP stadiumHowever, if that is her only measure of success then the University of Phoenix Stadium is in trouble. The UofP Stadium is a Maricopa County facility, voter approved. The County created the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority commonly known as AZSTA to run the stadium. Each year the State’s Auditor General is charged with auditing AZSTA’s finances. The latest report available is online in the 2010 Audit.

AZSTA receives its operating revenue from normal operations of the facility, including rental payments, concessions commissions, and facility use fees for all events held at the facility, except Cardinals games. It also receives the majority of its revenues from a Maricopa County hotel bed tax AZSTA Cover Sheetand car rental surcharge, state income taxes paid by the Cardinals’ corporate organization, its employees, and their spouses, and sales taxes generated from events held at the facility (pg 4). So it is different from Glendale’s arena as the bulk of it revenues come from a hotel bed tax and car rentals, both of which are fueled by tourism. The majority of Glendale’s arena revenue is generated from sales taxes both inside and outside the arena. Responsibility for payment of operating and maintenance expenses are also different from each other. Glendale’s arena manager would be responsible for payment of operating and maintenance expenses and come from the management fee. If the fee was not adequate the arena manager would be responsible for making up any shortfall. In the case of the UofP Stadium AZSTA pays a management fee to the current manager, Global Spectrum, and AZSTA additionally pays all stadium operating and maintenance costs.

What is the management fee paid to Global Spectrum by AZSTA? An average of $300,000 a year (p. 52 of State Audit Report, 2010). Well, that seems a lot more reasonable than the $17MAZSTA Mgr fee Glendale would pay to an arena manager. Remember, the $17M covers all operating and maintenance costs for the arena. The Global Spectrum fee does not.

Then we must ask what the O&M costs are and who pays them? AZSTA pays them and according to the State Audit Report, Appendix, pg. 12, Table 3 the expenses are considerable and the stadium does not generate enough revenue to cover its expenses.

AZSTA Rev ExpIn 2008 stadium revenues were $13.1M and stadium expenses were $22.7M for a loss of $9.6M.

In 2009 stadium revenues were $10.3M and stadium expenses were $19.9M for a loss of $9.6M

.In 2010 stadium revenues were $23.2M and stadium expenses were $28.2M for a loss of $5M.

As noted previously the Coyotes base rent begins at $500,000 a year. The Cardinals, on the other hand, paid $265,300 in rent for 2010. Their rental payment escalates at the rate of 2% per year. Another interesting bit of information is that in 2007, the year the stadium opened, there were 179 events with a total attendance of 499,699. By 2010 the number of events had dropped to 101 and attendance for the year had also dropped to 325,185 (p. 35 Table 7).

So, there you have it. If it were up to Councilwoman Alvarez and her ilk, the stadium should not host the Cardinals and a new stadium manager, who “would make money”, would be hired.

In Part II I will look at the City of Seattle and their 2012 Memorandum of Understanding for an arena as well as other venues nationally- what they pay and what they don’t pay.

copyright

       There has been a lot of chatter lately among hockey fans that keeping the team for 5 years is better than losing the team now. For rabid hockey fans such a thought should be anathema.  Why?
A little review of history first. In future blogs at “Joyce Clark Unfiltered” a more complete history will be offered.  In 2001 the City entered into a series of agreements with Coyotes Center Development

Steve Ellman LLC (Mr. Steve Ellman). The City’s clear intent was to build an arena to host the Phoenix Coyotes Hockey team which had been purchased by Mr. Ellman. There was no management fee in this agreement. In 2005 Mr. Ellman sold the team to Mr. Jerry Moyes. There was still no management fee as Mr. Moyes bought the team under the existing agreements with the City of Glendale.

In Spring-Summer 2009 Mr. Moyes wanted the agreements renegotiated with the City to include a management fee of approximately $12 million a year or he would dmoyeseclare bankruptBalsilliecy. The City declined and Mr. Moyes declared bankruptcy. He tried to convince the City to support the sale of the team to Mr. Jim Balsillie of RIM with relocation of the team to Canada and to accept nominal annual payments from him. The City refused and consequently in May of 2010 the NHL bought the team out of bankruptcy. For the first time the City would be required to pay a management fee and in the case of the NHL, that figure was $25M a year.
In April and June of 2010 the City entered into Memoranda of Understandings with theLeblanc Reinsdorf Group and Anthony LeBlanc of Ice Edge. Neither of these potential deals could

reinsdorfbe negotiated to all parties’ satisfaction.  Each of these parties was seeking an arena management fee in the $17 million range and each wanted an “opt out” clause of 5 years.

matthew-hulsizer

In February to June 2011, the City was ready to finalize a deal with Mr. Matthew Hulsizer of Coyotes Newco LLC. This deal also contained an “opt out” clause of 5 years. This new deal would have required the City to purchase parking rights from Coyotes Newco at a cost of approximately $100 M. It failed only in part due to the Goldwater Institute’s assertion that the City would be in violation of the state gift clause.

Jamison

In the fall of 2011 through January 31, 2013, the City entered into an MOU and serious negotiations with Mr. Greg Jamison of Hockey Partners LLC. It was a deal that was good for Glendale, the NHL and the team. It kept the team in Glendale for 20 years, the annual management fee was $12M, there was an option to buy the arena and it contained penalty and incentive provisions.  It failed because Mr. Jamison could not meet the City deadline for completion.I will offer more about this situation in a future blog at “Joyce Clark Unfiltered.” Lately there has been talk of “mystery buyers” with “deep pockets” from Gallacher to LeBlanc. 

Bettman

 


Ever since the arena was built I have talked to team owners of various sports. Universally the consensus has been that it takes a minimum of 10 years to build a solid fan base. Their general opinion has been that if anyone offered less than the 10 years then that entity is not serious about staying.
Coyotes fans should  not be willing to settle for a deal that only keeps the team in Arizona for 5 years knowing that it is not a good deal for the team, the NHL or the City of Glendale. How can a fan emotionally invest in a team knowing that it is destined to leave? Fans should be supportive of a deal that keeps the Coyotes here long-term. After all, in the last 18 months the emotional, physical and financial fan investment in this team has been greater than that of any fan in the NHL. It’s time for surety through permanence for everyone.
copyright