CubsFanBudMan

Ah... catching up on this thread once a day brings me such joy... and confusion. What a roller coaster.

Any reason that fake check is dated for today? Or is that detail just as pointless as the rest?

Ooh Dixmoor! But is the town big enough for the Grizzlies and Coyotes?

The mobile site seems to have lost its style sheets... or something. It's readable, but not nearly as clean.

bosrs1, confirm that this is legalese for "gtfo." I read that as Applebee's City of Glendale at first glance. Not sure if that says more about me or what I think about Glendale. I'm sure a city sponsorship can't be too far down the road.

The last piece of the ownership puzzle has to be Hulsizer... right?

I like what you've been doing with this account, posting updates to the threads when you post news, expanding the brand, etc. (But SL.N vs. CCSLC? I get it, but not sure yet.) I think this could be the evolution away from the megathread era, at least for me. I used to come to the forums for news, but if the news gets buried after an hour in a 200-page mega thread, well, that's not useful. Example: Actual pictures of Notre Dame's awful, awful one-offs were buried by more Army helmet debate and general bickering. Now I'm guessing if I trained myself to go to the news page first, that won't be a problem. So good luck. As a side note, I've been waiting all baseball season for the minor league megathread to bump, if there even is one this year. Expect some Midwest League updates in your mailboxes.

Glendale didn't win (although they are on a bit of a run here). Goldwater's hammer is still the "gift clause" lawsuit. But as others said, the deal has to go through first. And I didn't want to say anything, but I think I caught Jamison rummaging through my couch cushions. It might have been Jamieson, though. And waltere, isn't this the third KC NHL trial balloon? I thought the Kings have played there at least twice. I'm also of the mindset that if hockey fans can't be bothered to show up for one exhibition a year, they don't really need to be given a team that plays 41 home games. The alternative is OKC and the Hornets. Their support got them a team when otherwise they might not have been considered.

For as much cred as the Goldwater Institute gained around here as being the hammer that would finally pound the Coyotes coffin shut, this sure sounded mishandled. Why have Jones be the face of the opposition? Why not turn in 300 more signatures than what was needed in any case and turn them in 3 days early? As opposed to the opposite? For the first time in a long time, I feel like momentum has swung in the Coyotes' favor -- for the moment at least -- and GWI doesn't feel like the all-powerful defender of justice it has been made out to be. The city skated this one right past them.

The Coyotes are stringing together a few wins. This thing is going seven games... except it feels like we're already in the seventh overtime of Game 7.

Just catching up with this thread, but I want to throw in that other conferences expanding to 16 does not guarantee it for the Big Ten and Pac-12. In fact, they might be a step ahead of them in forming an "affiliated" 24-team superconference with existing members whose champions ultimately play in a Rose Bowl that feeds the national title game. Might be. Those two conferences already have a deal in place to crossover some football games in a few years. The Big Ten isn't adding Duke, UNC, etc. If this is about football, why would they? And it's been mentioned several times here that the Pac-12 has few obvious candidates, and certainly not 4. I don't think either conference will "settle" for anything other than a slam dunk. Nebraska was that. Notre Dame would be that, but I think they want to be elsewhere. They could have saved their Big East counterparts and could have turned it around quickly like the Big XII has.

Matt Hulzier? Is this another Jamison/Jamieson thing?

And aren't the Kings' chances of staying 100 percent currently? For next year anyway. When it comes to the Coyotes, everything has been on a year-by-year basis. We might be doing this all over again in 365.

Yes, after reading the article (which I believe actually said he only owned 10 percent), it still seems like a "bargain."

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Glad to hear the Blues are safe. Strange that $130 million seems like a bargain for all that he got. But now that MLB enetered the $2 billion mark...

While it's nice to see some new usernames in here and some Coyotes fire and passion other than BigMac12, please note that we're 75 pages deep and the first "Here We Go Again" thread was 100+ before dying as the "Celebrate Winnipeg" thread. And it wasn't all snark and -- *sigh* -- "haters." They're full of links to all of the stories that contained facts that we cite here when making our case. It's years of documented history, right here in these threads. So for some of you newcomers to come in, admit you haven't been following along and won't read the thread, yet are sure that "this time it's real" and "the Coyotes are viable," and "it's just Canadians vs. Americans," and "the fanbase is a sleeping giant," and "no really, they made money once," and... and... and ... more blind faith. Be a fan and enjoy the team's success, but believe us when we say this ownership deal has all been done before. Funny that you Coyotes die-hards didn't notice last year when Matt Hulsizer was in the role of "future owner." But it was presented just as seriously and just as formally as Jamison and it was illegal then, so there's no reason to think it's legal now. Not by our laws, but Arizona's. And for you "what-if" scenario people, I'll tell you right now that the Cubs don't deserve a dime from its bankrupt home state and they should be told to take a hike, too. And if the Cubs thraten to move because of it, it doesn't change my stance. There are more important things than SPORTS! -- © IceCap -- and subsidizing millionaire owners who can pay for their stadium upgrades and their teams, but just don't want to. EDIT: And I'll add my name to list of "save the Coyotes" supporters if they find a buyer actually willing to buy the team without taking handouts from Glendale. I will also hop on the bandwagon, subsidies and all, if they return the Picasso Coyote to it's rightful place on the sweaters (hey, this is a logos board after all).

Well, there's your problem right there. His responses sure read like a list of talking points. He says all the "right" things, but doesn't actually address the issues you raise. He's either not actually reading your tweets, or he's trying to force his ill-fitting script into the conversation. Exactly. That read more like a political press conference than a conversation between friends on Twitter. He's trying to keep his job.

I find it funny that the first comment on that link is a fairly simple and positive "I'm glad someone is stepping up for the Coyotes, etc." Nothing offensive. And it has a -7 on the thumbs up/thumbs down rating. As for the "sale," we'll see. Feels like we've been here before. (Not that that isn't true with every development here anymore.)

I can't imagine anything besides minor-league hockey taking up residence there. There's nothing wrong with being built for basketball.

I'm throwing a PotD nomination your way for this Wow. Thanks. It's an honor just to be nominated. Now, too bad reality is even more bizarre than that scenario. Is there any way possible that the NHL passes up the headache and just heads to Quebec City anyway for the good of the game? ... Nah, even I don't believe that they'd pass up a handout that justifies staying in Bettman's favorite pet market. I normally feel sorry for the people of a city when a team leaves. Now I feel bad for Glendale that they are staying. The cost & quality of life are going in the wrong directions. So should we be worried about another team being sacrificed to the hockey gods of Quebec City?

Actually, I'd like to see Hulsizer back in that role. Just dress him up again and play "future owner" again. Better yet, just put an actor or any guy off the street in a luxury box with a brand new Coyotes jersey and cap and put him on the jumbotron with "FUTURE OWNER?" underneath him. Save it for when the team really needs a boost, then the non-Blackhawks fans can go nuts and ask each other if that was Greg Jamison.

This always bothered me about the Cubs, who used HOF as a requirement, until they finally put Santo's 10 on the pole at the last game of 2003 when they thought he was near death. All while pitching him for HOF. Seems backward. If he's one of your franchise's greatest players of all-time, honor him that way. Don't let the HOF decide. Then there's the out of circulation issue. The Cubs were smart and kept Sandberg's 23 out from the day he retired. But then there's the 31 mess created by the dual issues of not holding out Jenkins and then deciding to honor a Brave to make up for their own stupidity. Mark Grace might have been a guy worthy of Cubs consideration but not HOF, but they issue 17 to call-ups as if there aren't enough numbers to go around (Bobby Hill, Pie, Fontenot, Garza). They were quick with 21 as well, considering Sosa was the all-time team HR leader and part of two playoff teams. Low standards, but they can't keep retiring 1969 Cubs and part-timers. And they are the Cubs. Flying a numberless flag or commissioning a statue for an actual World Series champion and not someone who finished 8 games out of 1st might be a good idea at some point, too. But I just know they're itching to retire 34... ugh.

Sorry, but I see no fire in Sacramento, despite a bit of smoke. I looked up the latest reports after it seemed the NBA had handled the issue of the $3.2 million, and I see they only fronted a couple hundred thousand of it. Still, I just don't see the NBA walking away at this point. It might even be worse for the fans to lose their team this way than how it was playing out last year. And that post-ASG celebration picture should already be haunting KJ and the Maoofs, as predicted. If anything, and if they can finally get the Hornets sale done, I could see the NBA then taking over the Kings in the same fashion. And I doubt it would be in order to move them to Seattle. The Maloofs seem to be the problem here. Perhaps Larry Ellison would settle for a team with a brand new arena that's not quite where he wants it? At any rate, the NBA's behavior with the Hornets seems to stick with the "be first or second in the market" mentality. Even Seattle, with all its positives, brings guaranteed NHL competition to a city that's already crazy about the NFL and even MLS. And has an MLB team to boot. So as much as the NHL might like to go to Seattle and keep the Coyotes in the west -- a suggestion that has been floated for at least a year -- I still think Quebec City will be inevitable, just as Winnipeg was. Why go be a fifth-fiddle afterthought when you can go be THE team and end up making so much money you get no revenue sharing (howvere that works)?