Glendale council meets about Coyotes lease, won’t tell you what they talked about

So did anybody stay up last night to wait on news about the Glendale, Arizona council meeting on the Phoenix Coyotes lease? Whattaya mean, there was a basketball game on?

Anyway, it sounds like the response to the prospective new owners’ plan to have Glendale give them $15 million a year for the next 15 years, and for them in exchange to accept $15 million a year for the next 15 years, didn’t go over all that well:

One council member left the closed-door briefing early, saying prospective Coyotes owner Renaissance Sports & Entertainment was getting preferential treatment by her colleagues.

“I couldn’t take it anymore,” Councilwoman Norma Alvarez said as she made an early departure from the executive session.

Okay, Alvarez was already counted as one of the seven-member council’s likely three no votes. What about Gary Sherwood, Manny Martinez and Yvonne Knaack, the three likely yes votes, and Mayor Jerry Weiers, considered the swing vote?

According to Fox Sports Arizona:

“What I thought would happen, happened,” Sherwood said. “When you go through some of the deal points, I thought there would be a hang up or two, and there were.

“But I think they are easily overcome, and I think there will be another meeting this week. I’m optimistic because I think that what we need to do is pretty simplistic and it’s easily doable.”

And according to the Arizona Republic:

After hours of meetings in private, Councilman Manny Martinez said, “We had long discussions as you can see, because we’re just now getting out, but we just don’t have the right decision yet.”

Martinez said the council will likely not vote on the matter during its next scheduled voting meeting on Tuesday. All the council members have questions about the proposal, he said.

Mayor Jerry Weiers said, “There’s been no decision made by the council, so right now, that’s all I can tell you.”

That’s right, the Arizona Republic is resorting to reporting non-statements by the mayor, because the council meeting was held behind closed doors. Because they don’t want anyone to know what they’re talking about until they’re good and ready. Except, presumably, the NSA, because they have nothing to hide from them.

UPDATE: According to Fox Sports Arizona’s Craig Morgan, there could be another closed-door meeting this Friday, with public discussion on June 25, and a vote possibly on June 28 or July 2. No word on how the public will know what to discuss when what’s being voted on remains a secret, but you know, people can usually find something to talk about. The weather is always good.

Share this post:

6 comments on “Glendale council meets about Coyotes lease, won’t tell you what they talked about

  1. “We don’t have the right decision yet”

    So, what does Martinez mean by that do we think? That they have a decision but not the one he wants? If so, what is the decision? And why must deliberation continue until the decision “he” wants is reached? Under standard rules of order, a decision duly voted on is a decision. The end. The fact that some dimwit doesn’t like it is irrelevant.

    Is Glendale council operating in a manner similar to our foreign policy? IE: you must decide this election yourselves democratically, but if you pick someone we don’t like we’ll punish you (possibly even obliterate your entire country) so you pick whomever you like but you’ll have to keep picking until we get the one we want?

  2. This is deep into Kremlinology, but if I had to guess I’d say Martinez probably means, “We’re a couple of votes short, but I bet we can offer those people something that’ll change their minds.”

    But yeah, John, welcome to the world of fait-accompli stadium reporting. Nobody ever says, “New arena lease just a couple of votes away from being rejected.”

  3. That loss is squarely on Popovich. If you’re ahead by 3 and 7 seconds away from a championship, give me five — no, three — no, one — good reasons you do NOT send Bosh to the line for 2 free throws.

    And why is Duncan sitting at a point in the game where you need rebounders?

    And why don’t you foul Bosh on that rebound and kick to Allen?

  4. This is a bad deal for both the city and the suckers who want to buy the team. Attendance will still be sub-par (and possibly get worse if the team under-performs), and the new owners will lose money instead of recouping their investment and – from what it sounds like – making payments to the NHL for having their purchase financed.

    In a couple of years (mark my words!) the new owners will cry poor and try to sell the team and we’ll go through this all over again.

  5. I wake up in Seattle, check the news, and we’ve got Zimbalist saying Seattle’s a better spot for this team…. because there’s someone with money offering to buy and move them.
    “For a long time I thought the team is not viable in Phoenix and it is certainly viable in Seattle,” Zimbalist said. “They’ve been trying to make it work in Glendale now for three years. They haven’t been able to find a situation that works. That’s because the situation doesn’t work.

    “It’s not economically feasible to have a team down there. It’s costing the other owners in revenue sharing, loss at the gate and media revenue. Seattle is a good choice for several reasons, but most importantly there’s investors who have stepped up and want to move a team there.”

  6. Keep in mind that Andy has done consulting work for Seattle:

    Though he’s done consulting work for pretty much anyone with a checkbook, so if anything that’s probably more an “I’ve spent time looking at the Seattle market and why it’s good” thing and not an “I know which side my bread is buttered on” thing.

Comments are closed.