Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
Yup.
As far as I can recall or tell, their failure to attract more than one significant use of the arena is the issue. Now one has to look back (there's that hindsight thing again) and determine whether, right at the start, that was foreseeable. If so - Glendale may have a problem. If not, then fine - it's just another bad business decision.
This ties into the GI's argument now: it is foreseeable that the potential for not being repaid is high - or at least substantial. That is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money (so their argument goes) and as fiduciary trustees of that the CofG should cease and desist. That there is a financial penalty to doing so MAY be dispensable by the courts if such an argument is held to be true as it could be viewed as a coercive venture.
There's a LOT of thorny law here - and quite different than a similar action in Canada. The GI has no obligation to 'disclose' whether they intend to sue; it might be 'kind' to do so, but they are under no obligation to do so.
Again, I'd be willing to bet that even if Hulsizer get his deal he'll be screaming for assistance, moving or some such in the not-too-distant future.
If I were an NHL owner I'd finally get off my duff, whack GB on the back and say - end this and let's get this franchise moved somewhere it stops sucking money from us - and maybe starts to send some back the other way! (But I don't think they're going to do that -- they still seem to think that GB and his 'cost certainty' is their saviour.)
|
The arena was built as part of a massive development, the type that sprung up all over markets in places like Arizona and Florida when everyone was convinced that the money would never run out. Was it a good decision? Well evidently not, but there is absolutely no way that it is actionable.