Notes on Glendale’s relationship with International Facilities Group

The Project manager, David Perez:

Glendale Arena-Glendale, AZ
David acted as a full time on-site consultant on the Glendale Arena project, representing the City of Glendale before, during and after development of the Arena. The Glendale Arena is a 17,600-seat arena which hosts the Phoenix Coyotes of the NHL. The overall development will include two million square feet of retail, residential and entertainment development. The City of Glendale funded $180 million toward the development toward the arena and hired IFG to represent their interests throughout development.

Questions: 1) What was the revenue from the City of Glendale for this ‘full time’ representation? 2) Who is in charge of development and ongoing support for the two million square feet of ‘retail’, ‘residential’, and ‘entertainment’ development? 3) What is the fee if IFG is involved in this development opportunity? 4) Would Jerry Reinsdorf be given favourable position with the family relationship with the City to take advantage of development and revenue? 5) Why would Jerry Moyes not have had the opportunity to do the same as in 4), in the development of the retail, residential and entertainment revenue sharing or creation? 6) In short,  would these opportunities be part and parcel of the negotiations of the proposed new owner of the Coyotes and the city of Glendale? 7) Why were negotiations refused with previous tenant, Jerry Moyes? 8 ) Was IFG involved, and would they still be involved in the consultant role for the arena lease? 9) If IFG was not retained to monitor the arena lease, who was? And, if the lease is not being consulted on, and IFG, having completed the project, with expertise in arena lease services and consulting, did not offer their services, would they be considered negligent – especially in light of the failing, very high rate, unsustainable nature of the lease. 10) How will Jerry Reinsdorf be treated as far as lease negotiations are concerned in direct comparison to Jerry Moyes? And, if Mr. Reinsdorf has better success in negotiating a favourable overall deal, could this be construed as favoritism? Could it be based on relationship and not non-biased client need? Was Mr. Moyes treated with similare consideration for need as a client? 10) Are favourable revenue sharing or land development deals ‘just because’ of hockey relationship justifying private profits from municipal projects? 11) Wouldn’t the Glendale taxpayers deserve full disclosure of the nature of the hockey negotiations before the hockey team auction of Aug 5th?

 

From Rebekah L. Sanders, AZCentral, from Glendale City Hall PR:

The world of professional sports is small. At least it looks that way in Glendale.

According to city records, Glendale has been relying on Jerry Reinsdorf’s son to help size up the Phoenix Coyotes’ dismal financial situation. Michael Reinsdorf’s company, International Facilities Group, earned $5,000 last year by making an “initial assessment” of operations at Jobing.com Arena for the city.

Michael’s firm also pointed Glendale to Beacon Sports Capitol Partners, which, for $48,000, came up with recommendations on how the Coyotes could trim expenses and increase revenue.

Father Jerry Reinsdorf is the sports magnate offering to buy the bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes and keep the hockey team in Glendale. He has a cozy relationship with the city already, besides being the only person that seems to have a real chance at keeping the Coyotes local. The elder Reinsdorf moved his Chicago White Sox team’s spring training to Glendale this year. The city took on $200 million in debt to build the spring training ballpark.

The younger Reinsdorf, who graduated from University of Arizona, also has close ties to Glendale. Michael’s company was a project manager for Glendale while Jobing.com Arena was being built in 2003, according to city officials and IFG’s Web site. The company also did similar work for the city on infrastructure – surprise! – around the White Sox spring training park and on University of Phoenix Stadium.

Now IFG, which counts projects at Bank One Ballpark and other facilities as well, is working with Glendale on the construction of the downtown city court house, records show.

In the future, Glendale may be dealing even more with the father-son duo. A recent Chicago Tribune story says Michael may play a role in the Coyotes, if the U.S. Bankruptcy judge rules in favor of his dad’s bid.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
 
Questions & Concerns: 1) With Michael Reinsdorf operating as consultant to the City of Glendale, it would appear to be a ‘conflict of interest’ with regard to negotiations of the non-hockey revenue opportunities of father Jerry. Mr. Moyes – was he ever offered any opportunities? 2) Question that is vital and still remains – who is on retainer to the consultation of the Jobing.com arena lease? Is it IFG, as this firm provides these services (lease negotiation services) to municipal and other governments? 3) the retail, residential and entertainment facility development is likely where non-hockey revenues will be significant, and worry of collusion should be paramount. With Michael on the inside, privy to the ‘goings on’ potentially of the City’s operations in many significantly related areas, it would give unfair advantage to Jerry Reinsdorf to work preferred agreements with the same City. A conflict of interest, and non arms-length relationship between son (consultant), and Jerry (client) to the City of Glendale. The insignificant dollar amounts reported in this article would appear to be a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to similar information reported before this article was published. In short, it appears more as an appeasement and a PR gesture, but does not in any significant way, change the scope and importance of the worry of unfair market advantage and dominance. Bids and bidders would likely be not given fair evaluation in projects where son Michael would have a hand in consulting, where father Jerry would have the inside information, and preferred relationship with the City of Glendale, as a result of his current dealings.

 WHO monitored the lease agreement and consulted the viability of the lease to suit the needs of the hockey team over all those failing years!!!!!! Did the City of Glendale do it solo, or did they use the services of IFG, that profess to be experts in this field? Would it be fair to say, that if the City of Glendale did not use an expert service to negotiate and alter the viability of the lease with Moyes, that they would be negligent to their client, especially since the services would have been readily accessible from Michael Reinsdorf, and IFG?

So, two possibilities: 1) no consulting company to assist in the negotiations and viability, or 2) a consulting company was involved. Who was it? (Rebekah, can you give us this information in more than a PR fashion – aka true reporting of facts?)

 Is the nonchalant attitude toward potential risk of collusion with private sector corporations, as suggested by the City Hall reporter in the above article  a representation of the attitude and nature of the professional structure of the City of Glendale in general? I would think the public is more scrutinizing than would be inferred by this article.

 

Advertisements

2 responses to “Notes on Glendale’s relationship with International Facilities Group

  1. Pingback: Glendale taxpayers deserve full disclosure on hockey team impact on City « Make It Eight, eh? Hockey again for Winnipeg!

  2. Pingback: Are we onto ’something’? « Make It Eight, eh? Hockey again for Winnipeg!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s