Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The argument is that the government improperly allowed the "or more unprofitable" language to be added, not that the escape clause itself is illegal.
Basically, what the NDP is saying is that if these contracts were profitable, and their changes to law caused them to become unprofitable, then the escape clause is valid. However, since they were (according to the NDP) already unprofitable, this means Notley and Hoffman can rape them all they want with no repercussions whatsoever.
|
The "or more unprofitable" language is definitely favourable to the industry side. However, I still can't imagine how it is improper. It isn't even particularly vague or ambiguous. Really don't see what the government can argue here.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|