Per the proposed 25-year lease terms-
City can use the ballpark for 10 annual events
Also guarantees El Paso that the team will be here for 25 years. Even if bought by new ownership. (this was one of the Bullshet agruments on why we shouldnt invest in the park)
Not bad for the city as a whole
(09-07-2012 07:10 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ]Per the proposed 25-year lease terms-
City can use the ballpark for 10 annual events
Also guarantees El Paso that the team will be here for 25 years. Even if bought by new ownership. (this was one of the Bullshet agruments on why we shouldnt invest in the park)
Not bad for the city as a whole
Naysayers will still find something to complain about it..
Everything they have tried to use against the ballpark has been exposed as a lie, yet they still keep trying.
The biggest thing I can't get over regarding how incredibly lame the naysayers are is that City Hall is a goner one way or another. Even if they stopped the stadium, Emperor Joyce Wilson is going to relocate City Hall.
The contract stipulates that the current owners cannot move the team to another city for 25 years. . That does not prevent the owner from selling the team. Any potential buyers if the team is sold would not have to keep the team in El Paso. Any lawyer worth $1 could easily strike that part of the contract down.
Why shouldn't the city be allowed to use the park whenever it wants? Isn't it owned by the city?
If anything was a lie it was that other cities were interested in this team and that the stadium wouldn't cost us a penny.
Can you link to that provision. I have not read it myself but the news did say the any new owner would have to honor that 25 year commitment.
How can you prove other cities weren't interested in the team? Why not acknowledge that Foster and Hunt simply killed it. They locked it down before another city could get their paws on the franchise and steal it away. AA Diablos, anyone?
Yep. TV news stations reported it. Even new ownership is to honor the 25 year lease.
When one purchases an entity, contractual obligations come with it (in most cases).
If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
(09-10-2012 11:19 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
Wow. Great analogy. Too bad it will fly over fitcrud's head.
(09-10-2012 03:46 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]Can you link to that provision. I have not read it myself but the news did say the any new owner would have to honor that 25 year commitment.
How can you prove other cities weren't interested in the team? Why not acknowledge that Foster and Hunt simply killed it. They locked it down before another city could get their paws on the franchise and steal it away. AA Diablos, anyone?
Mistabinks
I don't know if the link is still up but Steve Kaplowitz on the KROD 600 website wrote an article about the specifics of the contract. It clearly states that the owners cannot move the team to another city for 25 years. That does not however prevent the team from being sold.
If the team were sold, it would be very difficult for the government to enforce the terms of a contract with a previous owner that would prevent the team from being moved.
As for the interest from other cities. It's not up to me to prove that other cities weren't interested. That is like trying to prove that Mickey Mouse doesn't exist. It's impossible.
They are the one's who claimed that other cities were interested. Jim Paul specifically said that Boise was one of the cities. KVIA reported that this was a false statement after talking with officials in that city.
My guess is that Jim Paul is lobbying for a job with the new triple A team.
He has been making the rounds on all the radio and tv shows in favor of the stadium.
(09-10-2012 11:19 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
If I own the house then I get to set the terms. If I want to through parties at the house and it's in the contract then I can do it as many times as is written in the contract.
If you all are going to say that the owners have to abide by the contract and not sell the team then why can't they abide by the contract and allow events at the stadium?
You can't have it both ways. Either the contract is binding or it isn't.
So which one is it?
(09-11-2012 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Mistabinks
I don't know if the link is still up but Steve Kaplowitz on the KROD 600 website wrote an article about the specifics of the contract. It clearly states that the owners cannot move the team to another city for 25 years. That does not however prevent the team from being sold.
If the team were sold, it would be very difficult for the government to enforce the terms of a contract with a previous owner that would prevent the team from being moved.
Any new owner would be responsible for the terms of the contract. That is business 101. That is common knowledge. I am sorry you are not aware of this. Why you buy a business, you assume the business' obligations, debt, contracts.
(09-11-2012 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]As for the interest from other cities. It's not up to me to prove that other cities weren't interested. That is like trying to prove that Mickey Mouse doesn't exist. It's impossible.
Yet it is up to others to prove to you that there were interested parties?
(09-11-2012 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]My guess is that Jim Paul is lobbying for a job with the new triple A team.
He has been making the rounds on all the radio and tv shows in favor of the stadium.
And? So what if he is?
(09-11-2012 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2012 11:19 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
If I own the house then I get to set the terms. If I want to through parties at the house and it's in the contract then I can do it as many times as is written in the contract.
Exactly and the terms have been set. The City can use the stadium ten times.
(09-11-2012 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]If you all are going to say that the owners have to abide by the contract and not sell the team then why can't they abide by the contract and allow events at the stadium?
You can't have it both ways. Either the contract is binding or it isn't.
So which one is it?
The contract is binding.
Any potential owner would have to honor it.
The contract says the City can use the stadium ten times. The contract does not say the City can use the stadium unlimited times.
I don't see the conflict.
(09-11-2012 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2012 11:19 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
If I own the house then I get to set the terms. If I want to through parties at the house and it's in the contract then I can do it as many times as is written in the contract.
If you all are going to say that the owners have to abide by the contract and not sell the team then why can't they abide by the contract and allow events at the stadium?
You can't have it both ways. Either the contract is binding or it isn't.
So which one is it?
You have confused yourself, again. There is a difference between a renter and an owner. I know it is hard for you USC suckas to understand it.
I'm gonna guess, you do not own a business, have any experience in business contracts or a business college degree.
(09-11-2012 07:27 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2012 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2012 11:19 PM)mistabinks Wrote: [ -> ]If I own a house, and lease it to a renter, can I throw parties at that house whenever I want? I mean, I own the house.
If I own the house then I get to set the terms. If I want to through parties at the house and it's in the contract then I can do it as many times as is written in the contract.
Exactly and the terms have been set. The City can use the stadium ten times.
Considering that they own the park, you would think that they would ask for more access than just ten times.
(09-11-2012 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]If you all are going to say that the owners have to abide by the contract and not sell the team then why can't they abide by the contract and allow events at the stadium?
You can't have it both ways. Either the contract is binding or it isn't.
So which one is it?
The contract is binding.
Any potential owner would have to honor it.
Incorrect. The contract is only binding for the current owners. There is nothing in the contract that says that the owners cannot sell the team and no potential buyer would be obligated by a contract with the previous owners.
The contract says the City can use the stadium ten times. The contract does not say the City can use the stadium unlimited times.
I don't see the conflict.
It is absolutely correct. If you buy a property, business, etc, you are also buying their obligations. You disagree. That's fine. No more spank material from me on the subject.
I don't deny that this may be in the contract. I doubt however that any potential owner would not be able to by pass that portion of the contract.
As I have said before, it would be very difficult for the City of El Paso to enforce that part of the contract to potential future buyers.
Do you honestly believe that the League would allow El Paso to force a triple A team to stay if it wasn't making money and their were potential buyers in other cities?
(09-13-2012 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]I don't deny that this may be in the contract. I doubt however that any potential owner would not be able to by pass that portion of the contract.
I haven't read the contract in its entirety. I am not saying that any specific provision is in there. I am saying that if you buy a property, you buy their obligations. If that property has a 25 year provision, you are inheriting that.
Imagine the scams w/out that obligation. You give me 10K to build you an addition to your house. I collect from you, sell my business to my best friend, and then my best friend tells you he is not obligated to build your addition.
(09-13-2012 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]As I have said before, it would be very difficult for the City of El Paso to enforce that part of the contract to potential future buyers.
I disagree. I think it would be extremely easy.
(09-13-2012 11:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Do you honestly believe that the League would allow El Paso to force a triple A team to stay if it wasn't making money and their were potential buyers in other cities?
I don't think the league would have a say in that specific matter. That is why contracts are binding.
The contract cannot stop the owners from selling the baseball team. Any potential buyer in the future would not be forced to abide by a previous contract.
If the owners decide to sell ( which they have every right to under the contract) all bets are off. The new owners would have to negotiate a new contract with the city.
The city has no legal right to force a team that they do not own to stay in El Paso.
For that reason, the league would likely side with the new owners and lobby to have the team moved to another city.
If the league has a right to approve or deny the sale of the team, why wouldn't they have the right to move the team if it came under new ownership?
(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]The contract cannot stop the owners from selling the baseball team. Any potential buyer in the future would not be forced to abide by a previous contract.
Incorrect. The new buyer would be forced to abide by the existing contract.
(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]If the owners decide to sell ( which they have every right to under the contract) all bets are off. The new owners would have to negotiate a new contract with the city.
MountainStar can sell the franchise, agreed.
The new owners would have to abide by the existing contract however.
(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]The city has no legal right to force a team that they do not own to stay in El Paso.
Incorrect. The existing contract is their legal right to force a team to stay in El Paso
(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]For that reason, the league would likely side with the new owners and lobby to have the team moved to another city.
It would never get that far. The League would never grant permission for the sale of the team that intended to relocate the franchise. The League would already know about the existing contract that any new owner would have to abide by.
(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]If the league has a right to approve or deny the sale of the team, why wouldn't they have the right to move the team if it came under new ownership?
Apples and Oranges.
The League wouldn't own the team.
By the way, this is a passion project for the Foster and Hunt. Why speculate on the most negative outcome possible.
Also, you have stated ad naseum that you don't think any other city was interested in purchasing a AAA franchise. Now all of a sudden you are concerned someone is going to buy and move the team?
How many skies are above you that can fall?
Chicken Little!
Mistabinks
1. If the baseball team changes owners, a new contract would have to be negotiated. The city would be foolish not to do so. They would want to renegotiate the terms of the lease, maintenance and length of stay. In turn, the new owners would want to do the same. They might agree to the 25 year stay but they would not have to abide by the same contract of the previous owners.
2. The existing contract only forces the current owners from moving the team. If the owners claim bankruptcy as they most certainly will in order to write off their expenses, a third part will sell the team and new owners will not have to be bound by the existing contract.
3. The league will most certainly do everything in their power to insure the success of their franchise. Why do you think the team is getting moved to El Paso in the first place? Look what happened to the Dodgers. The owners screwed it up and the league stepped in and found new owners. If you think the league won't take this team from El Paso if it's not making money I have some land in horizon to sell you.
4. This is a passion project for Foster and Hunt? What evidence do you have of that? This is nothing more than a business investment. These guys are businessmen. If they don't make money, they will sell the team and move on. They didn't get rich by sticking with bad investments for sentimental reasons.
5. I am not concerned that another city will want to buy the team. To this day, no one on this forum or anywhere else for that matter has named one single city that was interested in this team.
I am simply pointing out a very important fact that everyone seems to miss and that is this.............The contract does not prevent the team from being sold which means that nothing prevents the team from being moved. Except of course for the fact that no one else wants them.
Don't be so naive. We build a new stadium for the Diablos to keep Double A in El Paso, we then built a canopy to keep them here and then we put in a jumbo tron. None of those things kept the team from leaving.
Is your memory actually that short or are you just too young to remember?