Perry Mason got nothin’ on me!

Here we are, waiting AGAIN for a judge to decide the future of Coyotes hockey in Arizona, this time again at the hands of the Goldwater Institute. The last deal with Matt Hulsizer disintegrated because of a Moody’s downgrade of Glendale bonds after Goldwater wrote them a letter detailing their “concerns” about the liquidity of Glendale and the potential of a lawsuit. The actual threat of a lawsuit after that was enough to quash the deal.

The National Hockey League (NHL, the owner of the Phoenix Coyotes) Deputy Commissioner Bil Daly stated on Tuesday (06/12) that the league was working with Jamison to finalize the transaction despite legal threats. We assume the NHL will have had their cadre of lawyers looking at this complaint in the meantime.

This time, Goldwater has enlisted two Glendale citizens familiar to faithful attendees (or viewers online) of City of Glendale (CoG) city council meetings. The complaint (Goldwater complaint 06/13) does not mention the oft used gift clause as it’s basis, undoubtedly because Goldwater ran the numbers, revisited the text of their loss in the CityNorth case, and decided it wasn’t a viable complaint. I agree. However, while Coyotes fiasco regulars all expected Goldwater to follow through with their threat of suing CoG, they threw a few curves into the complaint that probably weren’t expected, perhaps the extra preparation time is why they didn’t file until Wednesday 06/13/2012.

Glendale has responded with a release, according to the Phoenix Business Journal:

“Glendale maintains it is in compliance with all laws applicable to the Arena management agreement,” the city said in a statement. “This agreement will provide the maximum benefit from the arena to the citizens of Glendale over its term. The arguments presented to the court by the Goldwater Institute and the other plaintiffs attempt to invalidate a decision by duly elected representatives of the citizens.”

Please accept my apology in advance. One of the reasons Jack the Butcher (through William Shakespeare) offered his opinion regarding attorneys “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” is the length of the verbosity they provide in the hope that OTHER lawyers won’t be able to find some loophole in their language. So, the citations of regulations and the like are pretty long, feel free to skip them if you trust me not to lie about what they say. Otherwise, dig in.

New Players

Goldwater, rather than filing on their own, enlisted two Glendale citizens for their complaint, Ken Jones and Joe Cobb. Carrie Ann Sitren of Goldwater is their attorney. Yes, we’re aware Goldwater NEEDS citizens to actually support their lawsuit, we Cave Creek people had one of our own sponsor the Goldwater suit against our school district.

Ken Jones

I believe Ken Jones is a member of the Glendale Tea Party Patriots, an organization mentioned in the infamous Goldwater “cupcake summit” by Mayor Scruggs when discussing how hard Goldwater seemed to be pushing for the Tohono O’odham Nation casino deal. Ken is a loyal visitor to CoG meetings and has spoken against any Coyotes related expenditures many times. I don’t doubt his motives but I would be concerned for his health in a prolonged court ordeal.

Joe Cobb (his website) is running for Congress in the seventh district, we assume as a Libertarian based on his web site. His platform is illegal-immigration based, he’s not in favor of it. One interesting thing is that I was unable to find any anti-Coyotes commentary on his blog anywhere, so you have to wonder about his seemingly sudden interest.

The Complaint

A PDF of the complain (Goldwater complaint 06/13). I will take this opportunity to once again declare I am no expert and not a lawyer. I have, however, gone through the complaint point by point and believe it is entirely baseless and will, hopefully, be tossed out summarily and quickly on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Feel free to read the entire complaint at your leisure, or you can just read the excerpts following as each salient point is discussed. As a layman, it’s quite possible I missed an important part of the complaint, but I believe everything relevant is addressed.

Joe Cobb

1. This is an emergency action to invalidate the resolution and ordinance passed by the Glendale City Council on June 8, 2012 purporting to authorize a 20-year agreement to lease and manage the City’s Arena for the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team.

The first entry in the complaint explains that this is an emergency action to negate a resolution and an ordinance passed on an emergency basis by CoG on June 8. They go on to explain why they need immediate emergency relief, although the real reason is not mentioned. We’ll get back to that after saying that the above description is inaccurate, I’m surprised the writer made such a simple mistake so early on. The statement “…manage the City’s Arena for the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team.” isn’t completely correct. The Jamison consortium will be managing the arena for the City of Glendale, the hockey team in this case is merely an anchor entertainment tenant that will provide at least 40 nights of events at arena. Also included in the 20 year agreement is providing more events to fill the building the city owns. The group in question has a proven track record in successful arena management, something neither the current owner (NHL) nor the prior owner (Jerry Moyes) had.

One point that should also be made here is that, unlike any of the prior “deals” on the table, the agreement with the Jamison group is TWENTY years, a commitment (including a NON-RELOCATION agreement) to Glendale and the Coyotes that should be applauded. Rather than giving credit to the parties involved for designing a long term agreement, the standard reaction of the media and Goldwater is to use the extended length of the agreement to multiply the arena management fee (which is reduced over the term of the agreement) by twenty and then simply use the result as the only, of course now very large, number mentioned.


16. On June 8, 2012, the Glendale City Council voted 4-2 to pass Ordinance No. 2804 and Resolution No. 4578 that purport to direct and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a 20-year agreement to lease and manage the City’s Arena for the PhoenixCoyotes hockey team.

17. Ordinarily, measures are not effective or operative for 30 days. Glendale City Charter Art. VII, § 6. They may be referred to the voters if sufficient signatures are collected within 30 days. Glendale City Charter Art. X, § 1 & A.R.S. § 19-142(A).

Here is Article VII, Section 6 to which they refer (italics mine):

Sec. 6. – Reading and passage of ordinances and resolutions; effective date.

All proposed ordinances and resolutions shall be subject to the following requirements for passage at any meeting of the council:

(a) Copies of a proposed ordinance and proposed resolution shall be in possession of the mayor and council at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting and shall be posted in compliance with the provisions of the laws of the state.

(b) By request of the mayor or any member of the council, a full reading of the proposed ordinance or resolution shall be ordered, otherwise such ordinance or resolution heretofore mentioned shall be read by number and title only. The measure may be passed and adopted at any time after such reading.

(c) Copies of titles of proposed ordinances and resolutions heretofore mentioned shall be available to the public for examination and posted at city hall seventy-two (72) hours before the hour the city council convenes to act upon the ordinance or resolution. Should copies be not so available, such ordinance or resolution must be read in full before the vote thereon.

Ordinances without the emergency clause shall take effect and become operative thirty (30) days after the date of their passage.

18. However, measures that are passed by emergency take effect immediately, and they may not be referred to the ballot. Glendale City Charter Art. VII, § 7. See also Glendale City Charter Art. X, § 1; A.R.S. § 19-141(d); Ariz. Const. Art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(a).

19. The ordinance purports to declare an emergency requiring immediate operation because the arena lease and management agreement “will benefit the City of Glendale and its residents by protecting current public and private investment, encouraging incremental investment, and continuing to enhance the positive image of Glendale to residents and tourists.”

20. If the City’s resolution and/or ordinance are valid and referable, the Taxpayer Plaintiffs intend to immediately begin collecting signatures to refer the resolution and/or ordinance to the ballot.

What the curmudgeon thinks

It’s interesting to note Section 6 (c) here, the reason that Goldwater decided to abandon their claim of missing documents and open meeting/sunshine laws and instead pursue these other claims, in my uneducated opinion. The phrase “Should copies be not so available, such ordinance or resolution must be read in full before the vote thereon.” negates their claim because necessary documents were read during the course of an open meeting.

The basis for the lawsuit, boiled down, is that somehow the definition of “emergency” has been misused or clouded by CoG in calling for an emergency meeting in the first place. The Goldwater assumption is that the intent of this was to maneuver around the due process of law and pass something that the citizens of Glendale could do nothing about. Goldwater is contending (below) that, if citizens began collecting petition signatures now, without knowing the outcome, and then found out that their work was in vain because the ordinance and resolution stood, they would suffer “irreparable harm”. Really? Irreperable?!

Yet, the details of the deal with the Jamison group were published on Monday, every interested party, including myself, had at least four days to comb through that documentation and find the holes in it necessary to kill the deal. Yet, nobody stepped up other than Goldwater with their failed last minute attempt to postpone the meeting using their existing case against the city.

I know that, personally, an emergency meeting is exactly what was needed. I’m fairly certain that the NHL has provided a deadline to the parties involved, we are not privy to this knowledge. Assuming time was short, that should be enough to call for an emergency meeting and vote. The definition of emergency would be a difficult one to write and still cover every possible contingency, even using vague language like “safety”.


21. It will cost Taxpayers substantial time and resources to collect signatures for a petition for referendum. The time in which signatures must be submitted is limited, and referendum efforts demand immediate and intensive efforts.

22. If the resolution is invalid, the Taxpayers’ time and resources towards a petition for referendum are for nothing. Their injury is irreparable.

23. However, the Taxpayers’ risk of injury is also irreparable if the resolution is valid and they do not immediately exercise their limited opportunity to pursue a petition for referendum.

24. The Taxpayers are unable to begin gathering signatures for a petition to refer the ordinance to the ballot unless the emergency clause is declared invalid.

25. It clearly appears from specific facts shown that immediate and irreparable injury will result to the Taxpayers before Defendants can be heard in opposition. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(d).

26. There is a strong likelihood of success on the merits, a possibility of irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted, the balance of hardships weighs in favor of the requested relief, and public policy favors the requested relief.

27. Therefore, the requested relief should be immediately granted.

What the curmudgeon thinks

When they say “Taypayers” in this complaint, they mean Ken and Joe, not the general populace of taxpayers in Glendale. I really have no idea how much money it costs to begin collecting signatures on a petition for a referendum. So, I did a little math and, hopefully, came up with a realistic representation of the resource necessary for same, with some guesswork involved.

50 clipboards at $4 per = $200

120 pens (the good rollerball ones!) $20.29/doz * 10 = $205

Ream of paper (recycled of course) $33

Ink $50

Gas and volunteer time would be on Ken and Joe, so we’re talking less that $500 and I really couldn’t begin to guess how much time. Email is free, so is texting for the most part, so there is really a plethora of ways that people could put together their campaign and not risk too much of their life and limb.

COUNT I: Action to Lease Public Property

28. Acts of the City Council to lease public property shall be by “ordinance.” Glendale City Charter, Art. VII, § 5(d).

29. Therefore, the “resolution” purporting to authorize the execution of the lease of Arena is invalid.

What the curmudgeon thinks

Um, how can I say this in a non-insulting fashion. Got it!


What the judge will maybe look at

Here is Article VII, Section 5(d) to which Ken and Joe refer:

Sec. 5. – When actions to be taken by ordinance.
In addition to other acts required by law or by specific provisions of this charter to be done by ordinance, those acts of the city council shall be by ordinance which:
(a) Adopt or amend a city code or establish, alter or abolish any city department, office or agency.
(b) Provide for a fine or penalty or establish a rule or regulation for violation of which a fine or other penalty is imposed.
(c) Levy any tax or assessment.
(d) Sale or lease of public property. (BINGO, ed.)
(e) Provide or establish fire limits.

Hopefully, the judge has access to a computer and the interwebs. If he does, he can surf over to the City of Glendale web site and search for the agendas and minutes of a whole bunch of meetings, including the one that occurred Friday, June 8, 2012. Here’s the link if anybody cares to mosey over there:

Within that document, not written in invisible ink, is the following header (description in the document):


Therefore, please forgive me if I’m mistaken, I’m not a lawyer and my understanding of the law and language is rudimentary at best, but it seems to me that “Ordinance No. 2804” is an ordinance, so count 1 of the complaint should be moot (or whatever you call it). Perhaps they were confused because the NON-relocation agreement was passed as a resolution?

COUNT II: Emergency Clause

30. According to the City’s Charter, an emergency measure requires approval of five sevenths (71%) of the members of the Council. Glendale City Charter, Art. VII, § 7. According to state law, an emergency measure requires approval of three-fourths (75%) of the members of a city council. A.R.S. § 19-142(B).

31. An emergency measure must be for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, as set forth in the measure. Glendale City Charter, Art. VII, § 7; A.R.S. § 19-142(B).

32. The ordinance purporting to authorize execution of the lease and management of the City’s arena only passed with approval of only four-sixths (67%) of the members of the Glendale City Council.

33. In addition, the ordinance is not for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.

34. Therefore, the emergency clause is invalid.

What the curmudgeon thinks

The Goldwater citations appear to be in order, an emergency measure requires the approval of five sevenths of the members of the council to be passed. They fail to mention that the vote was, indeed, 5-2 in favor of the measures. Additionally, Goldwater had already visited Judge Cooper on the morning of June 8, before the meeting, in an attempt to halt said meeting. Their complaint should have, if they are truly calling into question the emergency nature of the proposed meeting, included the above citation of Article VII, Section 7. They did not, nor did the judge find sufficient ground to grant the emergency request of the Goldwater Institute.

What the judge will maybe look at

The citation (Article VII, Section 7) by Goldwater regarding how many (five out of seven) members of the council are required to approve a proposed emergency measure is correct. It is also true that the council meeting on June 8, 2012 only had six members in attendance. CM Alvarez was absent from the proceeding and, apparently, had not made prior arrangements for a proxy vote (if that’s possible in Glendale) or to be reached by telephone during the meeting to cast her vote. So, we really have no way of being 100 percent certain what her vote would have been regarding either measure. As a result, her vote should be, by law, cast in the affirmative. Article II, Section 17 states:

Sec. 17. – Failure to vote.
No member of the council shall be excused from voting, except upon matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct or if a conflict of interest exists as defined by the laws of this state pertaining to conflict of interest of officials and employees. In all other cases a failure to vote shall be entered on the minutes as an affirmative vote.

COUNT III: Competitive Bidding Requirements

35. Procurement of services in Glendale, including arena management services, are subject to competitive bidding requirements the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. Glendale Code, Ch. 2, Art. V, Div. 2.

36. Procurement of services in Glendale over $50,000 must be made using a formal written request for proposal or invitation for bid. Glendale City Code, § 2-145. However, formal purchase procedures may be waived with the City Manager’s approval when there has been a written determination that the formal purchase procedures would not likely result in a lower price to the City or would cause unnecessary expense or delay. Glendale City Code, § 2-145(1)(g).

37. The Taxpayers are among the intended beneficiaries of the City’s competitive bidding requirements.

38. On information and belief, professional management companies would competitively bid for arena management services at, which would likely result in a lower price to the City without unnecessary expense or delay.

39. At a recent Council workshop, Art Jimenez, Managing Partner at Phoenix Monarch Group, LLC, offered arena booking services to the City at a lower price, and for greater City revenues, than the arena management agreement provides.

40. The City has never requested a proposal or invitation for bid for any or all services in the arena management agreement, but it has also not waived the formal purchase procedures.

41. By authorizing the execution of the arena management agreement without complying with or waiving the City’s competitive bidding requirements, the Council violated the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. Therefore, the arena management agreement may not be approved, and the City may not be bound by it. Glendale City Code § 2-144.

What the curmudgeon thinks

Before we begin with the analysis of this portion of the complaint, even without reading the the section of Glendale code relating to competitive bidding requirements, it seems apparent that it relates to the purchase of materials such as computer, cars and any of the myriad other materials that a city needs to conduct its business. Only an attorney grasping at straws would make the leap to something as complex and specialized as arena management with a professional sports team booking 40+ nights of entertainment involved.

There are 30 NHL owners in the league. Out of that small number, there are none looking to manage another arena. Glendale, over the course of more than three years (remembering that before Jerry Moyes bankrupted the team there was a sale on the table) has entertained four potential owner/arena managers. Three of them, eventually, were determined to be non-responsive bids: Ice Edge, Reinsdorf and Kaites, and Hulsizer. The Jamison Group was eventually determined to be a responsive, competitive, bid.

Therefore, the characterization by Goldwater that arena management of was not offered for competitive bids is patently false, the bidding was open even while Goldwater board member Jerry Moyes was in technical possession of the team.

What the judge will maybe look at

If I was looking at the (35) piece alone, I might argue that the following definition (in Section 2-138) would exclude the services of an arena manager as being a “professional service”. To me, as soon as a phrase like “such as” exists in a definition, it becomes open to other inclusions while not being open to excluding the professions listed. So, first I would have to further define what a “professional” is, then continue my arguments.

Service: The furnishing of labor, time or effort by a contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports which are merely incidental to the required performance. This term does not include “professional services” such as architects, lawyers, certified public accountants, consultants, appraisers, and engineers, or employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements.

It’s interesting that Goldwater used the words “professional management companies” in their statement about who would be enticed to bid to manage the arena. Just above, we were wondering about who would meet the definition of “professional” to satisfy the exclusion from the solicitation to bid process. Thankfully, Goldwater has provided that definition and it indeed includes arena managers as “professionals”.

I don’t have access to a lot of information, including where and when Art Jimenez, Managing Partner at Phoenix Monarch Group, LLC (PMG) offered his services to manage arena. The Mayor and CM Lieberman met with Art to discuss management by his “startup group”. We’re led to believe that the two met with Mr. Jimenez at the request of CM Alvarez. No amounts were mentioned by the mayor in her statement during the meeting, and because only two members of the council were in attendance, I’m sure that Goldwater wouldn’t be endorsing something that was discussed behind closed doors without public attention, documentation, or comment. Would they? Of course, things like this are NECESSARY in the course of doing business in the government and private business arena, so maybe a private conversation or two isn’t so bad? Or, will Goldwater now be coming after one of their “own” for the same thing they often accuse the city of? The Mayor’s comment is in the video somewhere, (watch it here if you have Windows).

So then, being at a loss for real information, I turned to Google and searched in every way I could think for Art Jimenez in Phoenix (there’s a real estate guy) and the business, using all the permutations I could think of. Came up empty. So then, the next stop was the Arizona Corporation Commission, an ugly site but very informative. There, we discovered (corp. filing link) that Phoenix Monarch Group, LLC burst into life on April 18, 2012, incorporated as an LLC with one member (Art) using a handwritten form. One has to wonder whether the Suite number “L103” (5110 N. 44th St., Suite L103, Phoenix) means a mail drop in the lobby rather than an office maybe someday we’ll ride down there and see.

So then, the competition for the Jamison group Goldwater is speaking of has been in business for a couple months. That shouldn’t be a deal killer, people set up corporations for specific purposes all the time, Jamison set up two (Arizona Hockey Arena Partners, LLC and Arizona Hockey Partners, LLC) recently to close the Coyotes deal. The lack of a real office or anything else really isn’t important at this point, either. However, Art Jimenez has no Google findable experience running an arena, with or without a hockey team.

Turns out that Art actually sent documentation out to all the council members AFTER speaking privately with Mayor Scruggs and CM Lieberman. You’d imagine that, if Goldwater (excuse me) Ken and Joe are citing Art’s company as a legitimate competitive bid to the $17M (the amount reducing as time goes on) per year to be paid Jamison. Not true, Art is asking for $7.5M in initial capitalization for 25 events. Let’s do some simple math. If Jamison has (with no playoffs) 40+ events per year essentially “pre-booked”, all he would have to book is less than 10 more events to double the effectiveness the unproven Phoenix Monarch Group in bookings. So, at worst, CoG would be “overpaying” Jamison (assuming equal skills and contacts in the business between the two groups) for his arena management plan. And I don’t think that only 10 more events would be the cap for the bookings Jamison would bring to the table.

The reality of it is that Art proposed that his group work alongside the Jamison group. They would need $7.5M of the $17M arena management fee promised to Jamison, leaving Jamison with $9.5M to produce 40+ professional hockey games per year while PMG promotes 20-30 musical, cultural, industry, and sporting events per year. The proposal presented by Mr. Jimenez mentions that JMG would like to manage the arena and receive, from the city, a ten percent booking fee and $4.50 per ticket.

The truth of the matter is that PMG actually wants to ride the coattails of the Jamison agreement, sharing in the arena management fee being paid by CoG. If you have PowerPoint, click here for their proposal. Since PMG was asking for $7.5M out of the Jamison $17.5M arena management fee, yet they would be producing 20-30 events, he was not actually offering services to the City at a lower price. Using 25 events we arrive at $300,000 per event for PMG. Using 40 events (hockey games with NO playoffs), we arrive at $237,500 per event for Jamison. I am very bad at math and may have made a mistake, but to me, 300 thousand is HIGHER than 237.5 thousand. When we do the math with the higher number provided by Mr. Jimenez, then we even out with Jamison at 250k. Of course the Coyotes are likely to have some playoff games next year, further reducing the amount per event for Jamison.

PMG was also indicating in a letter to Mayor Scruggs (click here to read letter) that CoG would need, to be effective, to revise the Jamison agreement permitting the city to promote any type of event it so chooses, essentially competing within the same building with their tenant who had committed to a 20 year agreement.

It was CM Alvarez who asked if the Mayor and CM Lieberman would talk with PMG. At the time, and maybe even now, the PMG company has an Alvarez working for the company. I am not aware of the relationship, if any, Alavarez is certainly not an uncommon hispanic name. CM Alvarez would have been the swing vote on June 8, had she appeared or otherwise made arrangements to have her vote counted.

Therefore, Ken and Joe’s assertion that another group had “offered arena booking services to the City at a lower price, and for greater City revenues, than the arena management agreement provides.” borders on ludicrous based on the non-existent history of Art and the long-existent history of Jamison’s successes in the business.

Goldwater’s assertion that the city has never requested arena management proposals is incorrect. I believe they will EASILY make a case that they have been soliciting proposals for years, beginning even before the Jerry Moyes bankruptcy proceedings.

The person they bring forward as an example of what should be done, perhaps, with managing arena, is asking (if we use his HIGHEST estimate of events to do our math) exactly the same amount Jamison and CoG already agreed upon, which Goldwater is essentially claiming is too high. Huh? Can’t have it both ways.

The simple question the judge might ask himself would be, if (number 39) Art Jimenez made a competitive, even a WINNING bid in the opinion of Goldwater, how would he enter the bidding process if competitive bids were never solicited?

Therefore, because CoG has been soliciting competitive bids for years and has even considered some and presented them publicly in city council meetings, their point is moot (or whatever the word is).


42. There is a pending action for the public records associated with the City’s negotiations and related records for the lease and management of the arena in Maricopa County Superior Court before Hon. Arthur T. Anderson.

43. A motion filed in that case simultaneously with this action involves common questions of law and fact as this one.

44. In that case, the Plaintiff/Petitioner Goldwater Institute is the same organization that represents counsel for the Taxpayers here.

45. In that case, the Defendant/Respondents City of Glendale and Glendale City Clerk, are the same Defendants here.

46. The Goldwater Institute requests relief in that case that overlaps the relief requested here, on grounds in that case that overlaps the grounds presented here.

47. An order granting the requested relief in this case would also determine and/or moot the requested relief in that case, and vice versa.

48. Therefore, it would serve justice and efficiency to consolidate the Taxpayers’ claims here with the Goldwater Institute’s motion. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

What the curmudgeon thinks

Who cares? While I remain uncomfortable, the only advantage I could imagine Goldwater is looking for is a change in judge from Fink to Anderson. They have some history with Fink ruling against them in the recent past, but these maneuverings are WAY above my pay grade.

I am assuming that, once this claim is resolved, Joe and Ken are off the hook, litigation-wise, and can continue their lives without being burdened by further attachment to Goldwater.


Plaintiffs request that this honorable Court award the following relief:

A. Declare the resolution and ordinance invalid for violating the Glendale City Charter and Arizona’s laws and constitution;

B. Enter a temporary restraining order against Defendants, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin them, from taking any actions in furtherance of the resolution or ordinance;

C. Award damages and costs according to proof at trial;

E. Award costs and attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01, and 12-348 and the private attorney general doctrine; and

E. Order such additional relief as may be just and proper.

What the curmudgeon thinks

Okay, clerk, sloppy work. Usually, bulleted outlines such as that above wouldn’t have two “E” entries and nary one “D” entry. Tsk, tsk, let’s throw this out of court. I’m a little confused about the attorney fees mentioned (in the first “E”). Is the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute ACTUALLY charging Joe and Ken for their legal services? Or will they only charge them if they win and the bills can be paid out of deeper pockets? Or are they representing them pro-bono and this is simply another mistake the clerk made, leaving in standard language?

The real request (A) is to kill the results of the June 8, 2012 meeting. That will throw the agreement to sell the Coyotes back into the mix, the same measures will again have to brought forward and voted upon. Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue, there are enough votes in the council to pass the necessary measures.

The second request (B) is the one that, to me, tips the hand of Goldwater. Let’s all be honest here, we know it’s not Joe and Ken bringing this action, we’re all pretty certain that it was the lawyers approaching the complainants rather than the other way around, aren’t we? If that is somehow illegal or against bar regulations, we are all also pretty certain that Carrie Ann Sitren and her boss Bolick have covered their bases in that regard, right?

To me, the request for a temporary restraining order makes it patently obvious that a delay in a perhaps inevitable process is all that Goldwater could ask for. Until we hear the length of time they would like for the order to be in effect, we won’t know what THEIR opinion is of how far out the NHL deadline provided to the other two parties is. Once we hear that, we can be certain that it will be past the “point of no return” and the entire action can be dropped because the Coyotes will be on their way elsewhere. I don’t see a possible way for them to win, but Goldwater is a formidable opponent once the lawbooks come out and the filings start flying.

I hope that the NHL won’t be bullied by these people and will see the tactics for what they (in my opinion) are. If it becomes necessary to extend a deadline past where they have decided is prudent, and we ALL know this mess has gone on years past where it should have and the NHL has stood by the team so far. I hope that everybody involved with the Jamison group will see this as a temporary bump in the road, perhaps they have been aware as all of this has been foreshadowed, and that they maintain their resolve to complete the deal while fighting off the hyenas. I hope that the Glendale City Council members who are still on board will continue their unflagging support of this project until it is completed. Even a loss in this case COULD only be a temporary setback, it all depends on resolve and courage.

I hope my Coyotes fan brothers and sisters hang in there just a little longer and that soon we’ll be able to, in the immortal words of Mr. Famous Todd Walsh,



  1. ** If ** Jamison could finish his due diligence by Monday there is nothing that I am aware of that would currently prevent him and the CoG from signing all the documents on Monday and have the deal done by the time the Court is scheduled to hear the case on Tuesday.

    I also wonder is Councilwoman Alvarez stayed away from the meeting on purpose to prevent any chance of getting the five votes that may have been required to pass the law as an Emergency.

    Frankly, if I were Jamison, the NHL and Glendale I would do everything possible to have the deal done before the Court has an opportunity to step into the case.

  2. Kaleb Reedy says

    Hmm, maybe Joyce pushed Norma down the stairs to ensure the technical 5-2 vote! Looks to me like if Tindall or DiPiazza are worth their salaries as city lawyers it should be a slam dunk unless it gets consolidated.


  1. […] my reasons for believing why Goldwater will lose their suit on Tuesday, June 19 in an earlier post (link here), but there is one other thing somebody told me about after I was done writing, so I went and took […]

  2. […] the city charter. Lo and behold, that’s why Judge Fink ruled against Goldwater in this case. (Click here to read) Here’s what Goldwater […]

  3. […] The beginning of the end for the Coyotes should have been on June 8, 2012, when an abbreviated Glendale City Council approved the lease deal for the city owned Jobing,com arena on an emergency basis. While Councilmember (CM) Alvarez was absent, I am of the opinion that the city charter states that her refusal to vote in a transparent power move on her part should have counted as an automatic “aye” vote. I posed that scenario in an earlier post here. […]