dboss wrote:IMO it will be tough for the Pens to disparage this plan. They can't bring up the point I just made, because what if they actually need to USE this plan. Also, its much harder for them to tout the IoC plan's private funding because then people are going to say (as they already have) that the Pens don't want to pay their 'fair share'.
I don't imagine they will disparage it. They'll let the slots process play out, sell the team to new ownership, and the new owner can be the one to say "Why in blue hell should I fork over $8 million now and $3 million per year until the end of time when I can go field my team in Kansas City for free? So long, folks."
I don't they will tear it down because on the surface it seems to be a decent proposal. Again, more information is needed before a final determination has been made.
I expect to hear nothing from the Penguins at first, other than a cursory reiteration their previous comments about "we have the best plan already and people should support it" and "we were told there was no money availble and to find a way to get it done ourselves and we did."
I would guess that after a couple days of reviewing it, they will find ways to show how theirs is better. This may hinge largely on the answers to the questions I posed in my original post. Unless we find out that those answers are highly unsatifactory or even unknown, I doubt the team will attempt to tear down the backup option.
Even if they hear all of the detail and are secrtertly exchanging high-fives in the conference rooms, you won't hear them make any positive statements about it though. They are committed to IoC for one, and for two, while the backup plan is (on the surface) good, the IoC doesn't call for the Pens to kick in any money. Free aalways beats almost free.