Wetcoaster
Guest
You asked me to deal with the "facts" which were not so much facts as your opinion and interpretation thereof. I did so. I took the same facts and interpreted them differently.That is an interpretation, not proving what I said isn't a fact. That Moyes stopped paying bills and the league had to step in to make up for it is a fact.
This is an interpretation, not proving what I said isn't a fact. Balsillie wasn't approved and Moyes conspired (yes, the proper term, since their emails were pretty explicit in making sure the league didn't find out) to sell the team to him without permission from the league. That is a fact.
Who said anything about surprises? Is what I said a fact or not? Did Moyes engage in actions that would have a chilling effect on any other bid, yes or no?
Oh, it's not stopping there. Glendale will see to that. In any event, you seem to be agreeing that this one is a fact, Moyes has been charged with contempt of court.
I'm using the same figures as you. I notice you didn't use 2008. Why's that? Because every team gained value except Phoenix?
Once you hit the years around the lockout there are other factors in play. However, in 2008 Forbes noted Phoenix was the only team that did not gain in value. A fact.
So again, I ask you, what facts did I get wrong?
As for Ross, he may have the education but he is letting a severe bias interfere with his opinion. He is clearly antagonistic towards the league's ownership. If his opinion is to be taken as fact, why did the CCB disagree with him?
I'm afraid Ross sounds more like a "witness for the defense" than an objective viewer, and I don't think anyone with an objective view of the situation could see his comments any other way. For example, has he ever been an "expert" witness or other participant where he wasn't on the "antitrust" side? Is he, in fact, inclined to judge anything that even has a hint of being relevant to anti-trust in favor of the offending (in his view) business?
Given Ross has been fanatically pro-Balsillie in this affair makes the question, as you are fond of saying, rhetorical.
Professor Ross is an expert with credentials and therefore something upon which to base his expert opinion.
As you are fanatically anti-Balsillie and have no expert credentials I will go with Professor Ross' opinion.