re: Hornets Tax Exempt failed to clear the House...

quote:

---

so this bill was debated for hours, never once did anyone say anything about the ownership agreement being contingent on this money, and now we are to imply that it was? this makes perfect sense to you?

---

Read the bill. The bill itself states that it's purpose is to have the contact renewed. Jesus Christ and you used to work for a law school....

Ownership agreement contingent on lease.

Lease contingent on this bill (as evident from the text of bill and Jindal's comments)

quote:

---

never once did anyone say anything about the ownership agreement being contingent on this money

---

Contingent on the subsidy, no, but contingent on the lease yes, and the subsidy is part of the lease agreement.

quote:

---

Then, there’s the more complex situation of the ownership of the franchise. The Hornets are owned by the NBA and in quest for a new owner more than so for a title at present. There are exactly two candidate groups at the moment, and the most recent report, which did not include identifying information, is that these discussions are ongoing, active, and frequent. It is my understanding that both groups were informed of this lease, but had no formal input in the lease. They did not say “put this in there or else” and it was put in. I’m sure that if both groups said something worthwhile about the state of the lease at some point, it may have been included, but that’s not nearly the same thing and is pure speculation on my part.

Now this is important, so pay attention.

The lease basically works this way: It does not kick in until it has the approval of the State and the new owner. The sale, however, will only remain so if the lease is signed. So, there is no way for the new owner not to sign the lease as written. There is also no way for the NBA to get stuck with the team beyond the 2013-2014 season.

Let me say this again.

So, there is no way for the new owner not to sign the lease as written.

Once more. Twice means it’s important. Three times is telling you that this is the most mainest of points.

So, there is no way for the new owner not to sign the lease as written.

If the owner fails to sign the lease, the sale is rescinded.

This is what I was told in no uncertain terms.

---

LINK

quote:

---

tortious tiger.....exit stage left

---

He's either trolling or he really thinks the state had more leverage than it did. TT thinks taking $48 million in subsidies out of the equation doesn't effect the offers Stern had to choose from. Larry Ellison's offer of $350 million didn't depend on Louisiana subsidies. If you think Benson's $338 million didn't reflect the subsidies you're a fool.

quote:

---

if what you're saying is true, why hasnt anyone said it?

---

The state shifted it's relationship with the Saints from straight cash to "paying rent" to Tom Benson because cash subsidies to profitable businesses when everyone else is getting their budgets cut usually doesn't sell well. Resistance from North Louisiana was expected and I'm sure Jindal will quietly use carrots and sticks to get the result he wants in the end. I doubt they will ever need to leverage public sentiment by saying support this or the Hornets leave. If they don't need to publicize something that is likely to be politically unfavorable then why would they?

I haven't read what's before the legislature but I haven't heard anything about the naming rights recently. I'd assume we'd have heard it mentioned if it were in the bill. They supposedly had the LA Seafood Board's BP marketing money lined up and that was intended to help cover part of the state inducements. You asked earlier in the other thread why Benson would care about the naming rights, the answer is to help reduce the amount of taxpayer money going to Hornets which will lessen the resistance of people with concerns like yours.

It passed sons/mons/smihts

On phone so can't post link. Nola.com