View Single Post
03-08-2010, 03:18 PM
Global Moderator
kdb209's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,520
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SuperDave21 View Post

The OP posted outdated comments as if they were stated recently. It's a straw man argument. The comments can be taken out of context if read by someone unfamiliar with the court case.
Actually, he did no such thing - unless you can construe "Back during the court proceedings, Daly had this to say" as having been stated "recently".

I sure don't recall following any play-by-play twitter feeds from Judge Baum's courtroom "recently".

And not much has "changed quite drastically since then" - other than the IEH LoI, which was telegraphed from the time the NHL made it's offer to buy the franchise. And that LoI was signed and it's 30 day period of exclusivity has expired. The league is free to negotiate on Plans B, C, and D - having, barring undisclosed acts of provable bad faith, met the "commercially reasonable effort" requirements of their APA.

The league has been up front with it's intentions all along - it prefers keeping the team in Glendale, but if that is not possible, then it will control how and where it relocates.

And I don't get the WTF about the lease agreement - it's pretty common knowledge - and a significant potential impediment to the team operating in Glendale next season without a new owner and lease agreement with CoG.

kdb209 is offline