peter sullivan
Winnipeg
- Apr 9, 2010
- 2,356
- 4
Hey, no sweat.
A pretty odd one to pick, Peter. I was spot on on that one. Unlike everyone else up to that point, I was the only one who read the relevant provisions of the COG/NHL extension agreement. My description of the agreement was 100% spot on.
Now, you might argue that they are not replenishing the "enterprise fund" with the $25M in Ellman parking money, but that is not because they could not do so. They simply decided to do another deal with Ellman, and decided to redeploy $12.5M of the funds to that end as well in exchange for more consideration from ellman. They can do so, because their deal with Hulsizer is such that they are going to get their $25M back as well. So, they will replenish the fund with $12.5 M from the Ellman parking escrow money and the rest from the money they are getting back from Hulsizer. Nothing wrong there.
Again, another odd choice, since I was not wrong in that statement. Every decision of the COG was a foregone conclusion by the time it was voted on.
GSC2k2: 05-01-2010, 11:52 AM
A third odd choice. i simply described standard practice. Nothing we have heard or read has contradicted this. CErtainly, the fact that GWI took a hail mary pass right before the bonds were going to market supports my statement above. If it were not going down the road, GWI would not have issued their letter.
Now, if you wanted to identify something on which I was wrong, you should identify the error in assuming that GWI would take the political cover that McCain was providing them. I certainly underestimated their zealotry. THAT would be one to call me out on. The above three? I was right on all of them.
perhaps some context to refresh your memory:
point 1: you argued for pages upon pages that the parking funds had been used to cover the escrow account, contrary to direct statements made by council....when you finally relented that maybe it hadn't, you then claimed it would, but they had simply not gotten around to it yet...you argued that it was all agreed to by ellman and repeatedly pointed to a clause in the agreement as proof of this happening....your argument was that being arena money it was clear of the gift clause.....turns out months later ellman finally does agree to a completely separate deal to split the money with the COG without a cent having anything to do with the escrow account....even your statement above is wrong....they did not use the $12.5m to replenish the enterprise account.....that whole paragraph is actually just made up.
you cant argue that one....go back and read your arguments...you were dead wrong.
point 2: this was a reference that you made regarding the CFD creation for JR....you were arguing at the time of his MOU that it would all fly hunkey dorey because businessmen do not go that far without having it all worked out behind the scenes....we will never know what really killed JR's deal, but the CFD was never even close to having been created and months passed without there even being an attempt.
point 3: you may have been describing what you believe to be standard practice but it is clear that they did not follow that....your 'expectation' was incorrect.
the gist of the last two comments is really to make the point that you assured everyone again and again that JR, IEH and matty would all easily close their deals after the MOU stage because in your belief businessmen dont go that far without working out all the details.....your assertions were obviously incorrect.
Last edited: