In November 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona regarding Craig Tindall, a former Glendale city attorney. Lieberman alleged that Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while still being paid a severance by Glendale.

Tindall relinquished his duties with the city when his separation agreement went into effect April 1, 2013, three months before the Glendale City Council approved the agreement with the Coyotes. Tindall was paid his full salary through September 2013.

He was hired by the Coyotes on Aug. 20, 2013.

The State Bar of Arizona last summer found that there was no merit to Lieberman's complaint.




Right, so the State Bar Association found that there was no merit to the complaint about Mr. Tindall being hired by the Coyotes while still being paid by Glendale. He was hired by the Coyotes, but that was after Tindall was done being paid by the City of Glendale.

So there was no wrongdoing by Mr. Tindall in the eyes of the Arizone State Bar Association, who are not a civil court.

The Coyotes still breached their contract with the City of Glendale by hiring Tindall at any point within 3 years since the agreement was reached. So, assuming all that was reported is true and accurate, the City of Glendale as every right to terminate the contract and renegotiate.

Right and with a hr commute due to rush hour to games I can understand people not wanting to go even if there fans. Its hard to say its worth moving them down with the Suns in a new arena. I do believe in the the downtown region they would see better attendance, but building another arena for a team already with attendance issues would see like a really bad bet unless they could test out the downtown population again in the Suns arena for a few years.
- cmsabres48

They wouldn't need another arena...they could play in the Suns arena, it's right downtown. I was down there in March to see some spring training games and the commute out to Glendale is worse than a nightmare. It literally doesn't move. It's a failed business plan.

They wouldn't need another arena...they could play in the Suns arena, it's right downtown. I was down there in March to see some spring training games and the commute out to Glendale is worse than a nightmare. It literally doesn't move. It's a failed business plan.
- djamon

The suns arena isn't built for hockey, which is why the coyotes moved to glendale in the first place.

The Suns had an arena built in 1992, but was designed for basketball only. There is already talk about a new building for the Suns downtown in 2022. It's been reasonably successful.

They Yotes needed their own building down here when they moved. They found a sucker government in Glendale to pay for it.
- Tumbleweed

Oh yeah, I remember the Coyotes playing in that building early on. There was actually restricted view seats for hockey wasn't there.

In November 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona regarding Craig Tindall, a former Glendale city attorney. Lieberman alleged that Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while still being paid a severance by Glendale.

Tindall relinquished his duties with the city when his separation agreement went into effect April 1, 2013, three months before the Glendale City Council approved the agreement with the Coyotes. Tindall was paid his full salary through September 2013.

He was hired by the Coyotes on Aug. 20, 2013.

The State Bar of Arizona last summer found that there was no merit to Lieberman's complaint.




Right, so the State Bar Association found that there was no merit to the complaint about Mr. Tindall being hired by the Coyotes while still being paid by Glendale. He was hired by the Coyotes, but that was after Tindall was done being paid by the City of Glendale.

So there was no wrongdoing by Mr. Tindall in the eyes of the Arizone State Bar Association, who are not a civil court.

The Coyotes still breached their contract with the City of Glendale by hiring Tindall at any point within 3 years since the agreement was reached. So, assuming all that was reported is true and accurate, the City of Glendale as every right to terminate the contract and renegotiate.
- eichiefs9

That is not quite fact and there likely won't be enough public information to know this until arguments start being made in a court.

The facts are:
- The guy was fired by the city well before any negotiations with the current owners started.
-He was retained as adviser to the city.

The question that needs to be answered in court is: as an adviser, did he have a substantive role in the contract negotiations that created a conflict?

Both sides at this point feel they are in the right.

This

According to the 2010 census, the population of the city is 226,721

Do not confuse common sense of a tax paying member of that city with the sports mentality of those who think you're stupid to want to flush the 'cooked up' lease deal done with greasy palms and no interest for the best interests of the people footing the bill. Give your head a shake before you label the city Councillors dumb when the decision to create the boondoggle NEVER should have been made.
- deanofnucks

This kind of logic never ceases to amaze me. The total cost will now be more to the tax payers than it would have been if they had not made this vote, so yes, that is very stupid and short sighted.

You can't count sunk costs in your assessment. Sure, they should never have signed the deal in the first place, you may be right there, but it IS signed, so now they are basically just ruining the value of the team they are stuck with.

In November 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona regarding Craig Tindall, a former Glendale city attorney. Lieberman alleged that Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while still being paid a severance by Glendale.

Tindall relinquished his duties with the city when his separation agreement went into effect April 1, 2013, three months before the Glendale City Council approved the agreement with the Coyotes. Tindall was paid his full salary through September 2013.

He was hired by the Coyotes on Aug. 20, 2013.

The State Bar of Arizona last summer found that there was no merit to Lieberman's complaint.




Right, so the State Bar Association found that there was no merit to the complaint about Mr. Tindall being hired by the Coyotes while still being paid by Glendale. He was hired by the Coyotes, but that was after Tindall was done being paid by the City of Glendale.

So there was no wrongdoing by Mr. Tindall in the eyes of the Arizone State Bar Association, who are not a civil court.

The Coyotes still breached their contract with the City of Glendale by hiring Tindall at any point within 3 years since the agreement was reached. So, assuming all that was reported is true and accurate, the City of Glendale as every right to terminate the contract and renegotiate.
- eichiefs9

That's what I get from the whole situation as well. Reading between the lines, I get a sense that something fishy was going on right off the bat. A team in the desert, in a town only the size of Oakville Ontario getting a franchise seems odd in the first place. Signing a maintenance deal for $15M per year, which would be crippling to almost any municipal government immediately makes me think of corruption. The guy leaving his government job for the team immediately after reeks of it.

This is pure speculation, but it sounds like the deal left the city screwed, and it is the councils duty to try and remedy the situation by any means possible. I mean, how would you feel if your own city made an absolutely ridiculous purchase (for instance a gas plant that never gets built), that the tax payers couldn't afford, just to suit some greasy politicians bloated ego, only to have the greasy bastard go to work for the very people who probably greased his palm in the first place?

Not that anyone should be surprised by the idea of municipal corruption...

Agree with previous post regarding commute to Glendale from the East of Phoenix.
Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe.
I spend a week a month in Mesa for work, taken in more than a few games. Even with the benefit of routing info from "locals" it has often taken close to 2 hours from Scottsdale whereas post game is 20 minute return.
Post Christmas to Easter the population of Mesa doubles from our friends to the North. Mesa has more BC plates than AZ plates during that time.

Its too bad the Arena isn't on the 101 by Talking Sticks Resort and the D-Backs Spring Training facility.

I think they depart..... in this economy who is going to build a new arena?

Nashville is flourishing due to Arena location, Nashville traffic pales in comparison to the valley of the Sun.

That is not quite fact and there likely won't be enough public information to know this until arguments start being made in a court.

The facts are:
- The guy was fired by the city well before any negotiations with the current owners started.
-He was retained as adviser to the city.

The question that needs to be answered in court is: as an adviser, did he have a substantive role in the contract negotiations that created a conflict?

Both sides at this point feel they are in the right.
- Tumbleweed

It's going to take years for that to get settled through all the appeals. The big question is whether the Coyotes can get an injunction that would hold the contract in force until it does get sorted out.

Remember, the Mayor has said they were prepared to renegotiate. That's another possible resolution. Hard to see a sustainable relationship though.

It's going to take years for that to get settled through all the appeals. The big question is whether the Coyotes can get an injunction that would hold the contract in force until it does get sorted out.

Remember, the Mayor has said they were prepared to renegotiate. That's another possible resolution. Hard to see a sustainable relationship though.
- Canada Cup

Absolutely he would. Seems to be a primary goal of his.

If the Yotes leave, the entire building and surrounding entertainment district will rot. I can't believe that is the Mayor's intention.

As much as it is struggle, Glendale is better off with the yotes than not ... to a point and at what price? Seems to me a $10M management fee is closer to break even losses for the city (having a team vs. not). The building and its obligations aren't going anywhere.

thing is, he's taken an extremely aggressive and risky approach to re-negotiation. If all the speculation of the Coyotes owners' true intentions are to leave is correct, he's opened the door for them to simply walk away; and the city of Glendale will be in a worse position.

That is not quite fact and there likely won't be enough public information to know this until arguments start being made in a court.

The facts are:
- The guy was fired by the city well before any negotiations with the current owners started.
-He was retained as adviser to the city.

The question that needs to be answered in court is: as an adviser, did he have a substantive role in the contract negotiations that created a conflict?

Both sides at this point feel they are in the right.
- Tumbleweed

Sorry I reported this by accident. It would be great if the buttons were further apart

Anyway, from two separate parts of this article, http://www.azcentral.com/...otes-arena-deal/71036868/...

The city's decision to void the contract hinges on a conflict-of-interest law, common in government contracts, that precludes a person who works on a contract for the city from later representing the other party to the contract.

Tindall also advised Councilman Gary Sherwood and then-council members Yvonne Knaack and Manny Martinez on the Coyotes agreement via e-mail four days before it was approved.

Now, I'm sure the conflict of interest law is far more complicated than the simplified summary in that article. But what needs to be determined is, like you said, how much of a role did he play as an adviser and how does the conflict of interest law read? Sure sounds like he was consulted on this deal to me. If that falls within the confines of that conflict of interest law, then I think the City of Glendale has a pretty solid case.

I completely disagree with the comment on the 4000 people there. I went to the US Germany game and there was easily a good 10-13000 there. The lower bowl was filled and most of the 300s were. Now for some of the non US Canada games oo yea it wasn't as much.
- cmsabres48

No way, I was at that game. By halfway through, the people that came to see that game, there were 4,000. You had the Canada game just before it and there were straglers that hung for a little bit but they were Canadian and not there to see the game. The Portland Pirates drew more in that building than team USA did. Americans only bought the tickets so they could make money on stubhub selling to Canadians. That's what happens when you let your season ticket base get first crack on tickets with a massive discount.

This kind of logic never ceases to amaze me. The total cost will now be more to the tax payers than it would have been if they had not made this vote, so yes, that is very stupid and short sighted.

You can't count sunk costs in your assessment. Sure, they should never have signed the deal in the first place, you may be right there, but it IS signed, so now they are basically just ruining the value of the team they are stuck with.
- James_Tanner

Sorry, James, your math is wrong.

In a nutshell:

Glendale pays the 'yotes $15 million a year to manage the arena.

Last year, the 'yotes returned between $7 and $8 million from parking fees, ticket surcharges, and other revenues. See the gap?

So even if you take the silly scenario that they put police tape around the entire building and say "do not cross", they'd be better off financially.

But here's the thing, James: they don't have to just close shop. Two years ago, there were several bidders to manage the arena - and they asked for about $6 million in subsidies.

Sure, you might (might!) have less revenues from parking fees, ticket surcharges, and other revenues with no hockey team, but you'd still be better off. And I'm guessing that another company that wasn't tied to the hockey team could do a little bit better job of attracting other events - the bar was set awfully low with less than 90,000 bums in seats last year for non-hockey games.

Sorry I reported this by accident. It would be great if the buttons were further apart

Anyway, from two separate parts of this article, http://www.azcentral.com/...otes-arena-deal/71036868/...

The city's decision to void the contract hinges on a conflict-of-interest law, common in government contracts, that precludes a person who works on a contract for the city from later representing the other party to the contract.

Tindall also advised Councilman Gary Sherwood and then-council members Yvonne Knaack and Manny Martinez on the Coyotes agreement via e-mail four days before it was approved.

Now, I'm sure the conflict of interest law is far more complicated than the simplified summary in that article. But what needs to be determined is, like you said, how much of a role did he play as an adviser and how does the conflict of interest law read? Sure sounds like he was consulted on this deal to me. If that falls within the confines of that conflict of interest law, then I think the City of Glendale has a pretty solid case.
- eichiefs9

The mayor says they have information that hasn't been made public:

"We've all taken a beating tonight here, and I think it's all unjust because most of the fans don't understand the complexity of this issue," Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers said before being interrupted by several Coyotes fans in attendance. "The complexity of this issue is the fact that you don't have all the information. When you have more information, I think you will have a better understanding."

The mayor says they have information that hasn't been made public:

"We've all taken a beating tonight here, and I think it's all unjust because most of the fans don't understand the complexity of this issue," Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers said before being interrupted by several Coyotes fans in attendance. "The complexity of this issue is the fact that you don't have all the information. When you have more information, I think you will have a better understanding."
- Atomic Wedgie

I was actually watching the hearing when he said that it. It was kind of funny. A few people got all pissy and he had to point out that he wasn't insulting them.

Good. Get the city out of the desert and move it to somewhere where people actually like and watch hockey. What the heck is Glendale anyways? Get that team outta there.

Paul McCann: Stupidity… thy name is Tanner
- pmccann

Hey nicely done!

Sorry, James, your math is wrong.

In a nutshell:

Glendale pays the 'yotes $15 million a year to manage the arena.

Last year, the 'yotes returned between $7 and $8 million from parking fees, ticket surcharges, and other revenues. See the gap?

So even if you take the silly scenario that they put police tape around the entire building and say "do not cross", they'd be better off financially.

But here's the thing, James: they don't have to just close shop. Two years ago, there were several bidders to manage the arena - and they asked for about $6 million in subsidies.

Sure, you might (might!) have less revenues from parking fees, ticket surcharges, and other revenues with no hockey team, but you'd still be better off. And I'm guessing that another company that wasn't tied to the hockey team could do a little bit better job of attracting other events - the bar was set awfully low with less than 90,000 bums in seats last year for non-hockey games.
- Atomic Wedgie

Kinda of a quick and dirty analysis .... and try to poke holes in it without being a Richard, bumhole.

The 90,000 is a 10-month number from July/14 to Apr/15. I know it doesn't sound like a lot but:

For the calendar year 2014 (pollstar):

ACC had 584,000 attendees for shows for #11 in the world

US Airways in Phoenix had 258,000 attendees for #62 in the world

Gila River had 76,000 attendees for #148 in the world.

So the current market for shows at large venues seems to be about 334,000 in the greater phoenix area. if they capture half that market, their max customers are about 162,000. Very optimistically, if they can help grow the market to something similar to Toronto, and hold a 50% market share, they're probably at about 292,000.

In any event, won't happen overnight, won't be consistent like the 41 hockey dates and doesn't replace the 500,000 plus hockey customers; though Glendale was getting better rates on non-hockey events under the agreement they just cancelled. Then there are some big plans for a downtown Phoenix revitalization and new basketball venue in the next 7-8 years. In the long-term, competition for non-hockey events will likely be tougher.

I suppose you can attract some additional #'s with non-show events, but I'm not sure how much that might be.

In the end, Glendale is clearly in a poop position; with no good answer. Do they pull the plug for good or try to make it work? For the larger economic benefits to the residents of the city itself, I think they should try to make it work rather than just mothball the thing.

#PrayForTanner

COUGH.. COUGH Nassau County.. cough... cough

Honestly both sides are stupid, the city for allowing this lease to happen and the new ownership that can't take a minute to sit down with the hand that is feeding them 15 mil just to run the place.

This is like watching two bald men fight for a brush,you just don't care.

Honestly both sides are stupid, the city for allowing this lease to happen and the new ownership that can't take a minute to sit down with the hand that is feeding them 15 mil just to run the place.

This is like watching two bald men fight for a brush,you just don't care.
- Alexzanki[/quote]

There are 2 chances for the Yotes to barely survive, and one of them disappeared when the Oilers won this years draft lottery. Their 2nd and final chance of survival would again be left in the hands of the lottery gods, and this time only a lottery win would guarantee them the rights to local boy Mathews, and offer a slim chance the team will stick around for awhile.

An additional near miracle or two wouldn't hurt either.

Dear Paul

The Chicago Blackhawks just won their third STANLEY CUP in six seasons. The same Chicago team you picked to lose every round in this playoff. The same Chicago team you wrote was outplayed or lucky against Nashville and the Ducks. The same Chicago city where you wrote an article badmouthing their radio personalities. The same Chicago city where you called their fan base bandwagon jumpers. Well Paul... what do you have to say today? Let me help you. The Chicago Blackhawks are the STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS. The Chicago Blackhawks are a DYNASTY. And you know what Paul... there really is nothing else you can say about that.

Find your net Paul. Find your net.