Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
1) Yes, the MOU was ambiguous - certainly ambiguous enough that it would have resulted in meetings and discussions, etc and not just a unilateral, off the cuff ruling from the #2 guy.
2) No way, IMO that they would ever actually enforce such a ruling - especially one generated from the wording of a quickly drafted MOU - that so severely punished one team and unfairly awarded another (Columbus in this case). Far more likely, and more politically prudent, to simply cancel and negate the whole transaction.
|
3) the whole situation could have been clarified with a 5 minute phone call from a competent GM.
All the rest is just hope that we weren't going to get bent over the table.