View Single Post
05-02-2010, 06:27 PM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
GSC2k2: Here's the MOU:

Show us all where Reinsdorf is prohibited from breaking the lease. Show us where it "does not allow the subsequent purchaser to break the lease and move the team"

Or were you just speculating about those things?

Your latest posts amply demonstrate one of two things:

(a) You are incapable of understanding what you are reading; or

(b) You are trying to do some sort of ridiculous mano-a-mano thing and therefore are deliberately ignoring what I am telling you.

[I am not discounting the possibility that both (a) and (b) are operative.]

Let me repeat what i have said several times, including directly to you: I am reading the MOU. In case you haven't noticed (but I know you have), there is rampant misunderstanding on the provisions of the MOU itself. Some people think that the City has to actually buy the team. Others think that the city is guaranteeing the price (effectively making this a put, instead of the call that it is). Others have completely misunderstood the nature of the losses provision. Others think that (and pay close attention to this one) that there actually is a provision in the MOU allowing JR to move the team. Others (again, read closely) think that there is a provision in the MOU providing for the lease to terminate.

Now read this super-closely, because I am tired of repeating it for you:

1. THere is no provision in the MOU that allows the AMULA to terminate early.

2. Several people mistakenly believe that there is such a provision in the MOU.

3. Because of 1 and 2, I have posted that there is no such provision in the MOU.

Allow me to repeat, YET AGAIN, what I have said in my recent posts:

"As I said in my previous post and bears repeating here, if the City decides to do something that is not in the documents, c'est la vie. As many have noted, an out clause would negatively impact the CFD's ability to sell bonds."

If you think that is speculating on the AMULA, then you are wasting my time and everyone else's time.

You are the only one among the two of us who is speculating. If you want to talk about differences between the two of us, as noted in your previous post, one of us has written literally hundreds of MOUs in their career, and the other has not. I actually would be qualified to speculate on what will be in the AMULA, but I have not done so. You know why? Because I know, again from experience, that dealing with governmental entities results in parties doing things for political perception reasons that have no place in commercial transactions. THe fact is that, in a normal commercial environment, if the parties have discussed and agreed upon an "out clause", it would be a specified provision of the MOU, given its critical importance. With political perception a factor, certain political actors might not want it publicized. THAT, however, is a function of a number of political factors which no one here has even the slightest ability to calculate (yours truly included). Hence, I do not speculate on what will be in the AMULA. What we do NOT need to speculate on is what is ACTUALLY IN THE MOU. We don't need to speculate because we have it in front of us.

You are speculating about the AMULA. I am (and have been) talking about what is in (or not in) the MOU, which is in front of us.

Do you get it now? If not, I am out of ways to tell you.

From your previous post in the other thread:

And equally in short: I simply observed what is not in the MOU (language preventing Reinsdorf from terminating the AMULA)
That is a baldfaced fabrication of what you did. You expressly speculated on the AMULA. You even admitted to same in the rest of your post.

A more seasoned professional would likely interpret the inclusion of that option to mean that if Glendale fails to locate a local buyer, Reinsdorf would indeed have the ability to break the lease and leave.
Again, please explain how you would have the faintest idea what a "more seasoned professional" would do or not do.

[NOTE: You have not even tried to address the reference in Recital E of the MOU, which again states: "It is the intent of the parties to keep the team in Glendale, Arizona for the term of the lease."]

GSC2k2* is offline