View Single Post
Old
11-28-2012, 02:31 PM
  #116
rt
CoolWhiskyHotGravy
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: County Cork
Country: Ireland
Posts: 53,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
I finished the video and here's what stuck out to me, in no particular order:

- Effective Date of the agreement will be a significant fact. Ordinances without emergency clauses cannot be acted upon for 30 days. As soon as that 30 days is up, the agreement may be effected which initiates the binding language @ 3.1 and challenge language @ 18.
Background on this: the agreement is structured with two key events: 1) effective date of the agreement 2) fulfillment of the closing conditions. Once the agreement goes into effect (whenever the city signs after the 30 day referendum window) they are bound to the terms unless JIG fails to close the sale with the NHL prior to Jan 30, 2013. From a city perspective, you want to share the cost of a challenge which is incentive to effectuate but you don't want to be bound to a deal prior to JIG proving they can close, which is disincentive. It will be interesting to see what they do.
I keep seeking clarification on this part, but I'm not sure I've got it.

Lease/AMF can't be finalized until after Christmas, essentially? Regardless of whether or not Jamison has closed with the NHL? Also, the lease/amf can't be finalized until the sale of the team to Jamison has been finalized, right? So, I guess we are looking about the earliest possible close of the sale and lease/amf to Jamison will be Dec.28th(ish)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
- Scruggs asked Jamison if he was going to contract with LLCs featuring former Glendale city employees as part of the sublease language @ 6.3. Jamison said he did not know what she meant. It was an incredible exchange and had terrible optics. I watched it twice. If you've ever seen a witness trapped in cross examination, that's exactly what Mr. Jamison looked like to me. Jamison ultimately said he was not planning to assign subleases to former city employees but the clear impression he left was that he wanted to dodge the question very badly - which is generally a sign of someone being less than honest.
Background on this: @ 6.3 the agreement allows JIG to sublease the arena management to a 3rd Party. The sublease requires approval from the city - however, the city cannot without that approval as long as the sublease manager fulfills the obligations of the agreement. Further, Scruggs said that she believed that LLCs including former city employees (I interpreted this to mean Beasley and Associates) were in line to receive subleases. This is a fascinating development as it amounts to a thinly veiled acquisition of sublease assignments as kickbacks to the city staff that helped get the deal passed.
Sounds like a good way to end up in Jail. I'm not sure any current or former council members/managers or Jamison himself are interested in that. I don't actually know if it's illegal, but it certainly seems like the kind of thing that lands people in the klink. Not necessarily the sub-leasing itself, but the sub-leasing as a kickback, I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
If the contract is effected and the sale is closed without any interruption for lawsuit or referendum...
Any chance this happens? One percent, maybe? haha.

__________________
All of it is Dave Tippett's fault. He's the worst.
rt is online now