GLENDALE – Things have taken an interesting turn in the battle between the Arizona Coyotes and the City of Glendale. Since voting last week to terminate the Coyotes’ contract to manage and play in the Gila River Arena in Glendale, the Glendale City Council has been under fire from all directions. They are standing firm, however, in their belief that they are doing what’s best for the City of Glendale. They seem to be alone in that belief.
Since the Council vote, the Coyotes have made good on their promise to file a $200 Million lawsuit against the City of Glendale, seeking damages and injunctive relief to allow them to continue managing the arena until the matter is settled in court. The court granted a temporary restraining order, and seems likely to grant an injunction. So it looks as if, at least for a while, the Coyotes will continue to occupy the Gila River Arena.
I reported last week that the whole dispute revolves around former Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall and his current employment with the Coyotes. Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers and Vice Mayor Ian Hugh apparently believe this to be a conflict of interest in that Tindall had worked on earlier deals the city attempted, unsuccessfully, to negotiate with other potential buyers of the Coyotes. The Mayor and the City Council seem to believe that his employment with the Coyotes (which began after the deal had been negotiated) represents a conflict of interest which allows the City to terminate the contract within three years in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute 38-511.
Now it seems that the city also has a conflict of interest issue with former City Communications Director Julie Frisoni. Frisoni left her position with the city in March and worked with the Coyotes as a consultant on the team’s bid to bring the World Junior Championship tournament to Glendale (with the full knowledge and consent of the Council). That bid has been scrapped in the wake of the current turmoil. Frisoni claims to have had absolutely no involvement in the drafting of the deal or in the negotiations. She has accused the City of Glendale of “blatant lies” in an attempt to destroy her reputation and says she is considering legal action against the city.
Mayor Weiers has repeatedly insinuated that people who blame him or the Council for this mess are uninformed and don’t know the full story. For their part, Weiers and the Council have cited confidentiality of the Council’s executive session as reasons they won’t divulge any further information, pending the legal action.
The Council voted again Tuesday night in a special session to stand firm in their current course of action. Then they went one better and filed a motion today asking the court to allow them to forgo their quarterly payment to the Coyotes (due on July 1st). The motion, which again reiterates the City of Glendale’s contention that there was a conflict of interest, seeks to apply the Coyotes’ restraining order to the city’s obligation to the team. If nothing else, it gets their ARS 38-511 claim entered into the court record. Both Weiers and Hugh maintain that this is not about hockey, but rather just about the law. Weiers continues to suggest, however, that further action could be avoided if the team would agree to meet with them and renegotiate the original deal in a way that is more equitable to the city. So, in my opinion, Weiers’ claim that it is all about the law rings somewhat hollow. He seems to be willing to overlook the “violations” of the law if it means getting a better deal for the city.
Putting aside Weiers’ claims that we don’t have all the facts, one thing appears certain. The city intends to claim that both Frisoni and Tindall were actively involved and made a “significant contribution” to the original deal between the City of Glendale and the Coyotes. Furthermore, they apparently intend to insinuate that Frisoni and Tindall conspired and colluded with the Coyotes to negotiate a deal that unfairly favors the Coyotes at the expense of the city and its taxpayers.
As Frisoni was basically a publicist at the time of the negotiations, it seems highly unlikely that she would have been involved in the drafting or negotiation of the contract. That seems to go far beyond her job description at the time.
As for Tindall, given that he was forced to resign as of April 1st (albeit with 6 months’ severance) it would seem that they were unhappy with his job performance. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that they would have asked him in June and July to consult on this very big, very important deal with a potential client (Ice Arizona). Unless they have some ironclad evidence that he was actively involved, I can’t believe that any court will believe that he was involved at all, let alone a “significant” contributor. I believe their intent is to claim that since he drafted earlier versions of a similar deal that he, in effect, drafted early versions of this deal. Regardless, I think that’s a bit of a stretch to claim that he was actively involved with these negotiations. Again, I doubt that any court will see it that way.
The legal consensus seems to be that the Glendale City Council is in way over their heads. One legal pundit even went so far as to suggest that the Council’s action was so stupid that it calls into question how their legal consultant could have possibly passed the bar exam. We won’t know what cards they’re holding until they get into a courtroom, but by all accounts it would seem that the Glendale City Council is either led by the single most cunning legal mind in the country, or a virtual imbecile. They’re either playing possum, in which case whatever evidence they present will catch the Coyotes legal counsel completely off guard, or they really have nothing whatsoever to substantiate their claims and are basically on a suicide mission. Time will tell.
In the meantime, all of this makes an already difficult situation nearly impossible for the Coyotes. They have stated their intention to continue on with business as usual, but all this uncertainty makes it a lot harder to lock in corporate sponsorships and season ticket sales…not to mention how it affects the team’s ability to attract free agents. For all their struggling and hard work to improve their situation, they find themselves right back where they were three years ago.
Both sides should be seeking a speedy resolution to this situation. It’s in neither party’s best interest for this to turn into a long, drawn-out legal proceeding. Every day of uncertainty hinders the Coyotes and undermines their efforts to put together a winning (and profitable) team. Every day in a courtroom costs the City of Glendale money that, by all accounts, they can’t afford to spend. Both sides need to end this quagmire quickly. Unfortunately, neither one seems willing to give an inch, either owing to supreme confidence in the virtue of their position or to blind obstinacy.
It’s hard to imagine a positive resolution to this conflict; one that will allow the two parties to continue working together amicably after the legal dust settles. I wonder if that’s even possible now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.