Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
You just implied that there was not:
You are arguing against the claim that litigation is a common feature in projects requiring a plebiscite in the U.S. You have offered nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada, in evidence against that claim. You reject the claim itself as ‘something coming from the organization’, i.e. propaganda from an interested party, and as such of no evidentiary value – without any proof that this is indeed the source.
If there is ‘plenty of evidence’ against TheScorpion's claim, let's hear some of it.
|
Have you been paying attention?
My point is that assertions coming from this ownership group tend not be based in fact and they don't operate in good faith. Certainly you don't need to be shown evidence of that but here you go:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...ll/6448958001/
https://theathletic.com/4223681/2021...investigation/
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...plan-cost.aspx
https://theathletic.com/2162185/2020...-bullying-nhl/
https://theathletic.com/3317668/2022...-alex-meruelo/
As for what Scorp is saying, I'm simply asking from where he is receiving this information. I need evidence to ask this?
He claimed the Tempe deal was set in concrete except for the voters. I pointed out the lawsuit. Here is my evidence:
https://www.skyharbor.com/about-phx/...against-tempe/
Scorp believes the lawsuit would not have impacted anything. I asked for evidence of this especially since a similar lawsuit blocked a Tempe stadium deal 20 years previously.
Scorp states no big deal, nearly all public infrastructure projects go to litigation. Quite a claim, does saying it put the burden of on someone else to disprove? Again I reference the failed deal from 20 years ago.
This could still work out, they do have money after all. But IMO asking questions is rightfully deserved at this point. If you want to participate in the discussion, with either facts or opinions, that would be great though. My opinion is that anyone who carries water for these guys does so at the risk of their own credibility.