Stoosh wrote:If this Plan B can still get an arena built along the same time frame that the IoC plan could, I'm hoping they wouldn't have a problem with it.
My biggest concern all along with this - my "worst-case scenario", if you will - would be that some group other than IoC wins the license and the Pens still decide to leave even in the presence of an alternate plan that might be good but not as great as the IoC plan. And this Plan B that Rendell proposed today may be just that...good but not as great as the IoC deal. It seems to require a contribution from the team that they wouldn't have had to make otherwise, but on its face, I'm not sure any ownership group would find this to be an egregious contribution as it's spread out over a long period of time. I'd be interesting to see how this would stack up against arena deals in other cities.
I hate to say it, but if that still happens, I'll lose a ton of respect for this organization.
newarenanow wrote:I doubt this will happen because of the IOC partnership, but if they say go ahead, build the arena, but we will stick to our plan until the slots are awarded, and they agree to stay no matter what, I'm getting sh*tfaced tonight.
But there is only a 1% chance of that happening.
The Pens will come out and say, "we have the best plan and we are sticking to it, we will visit this proposal at another time."
DrBoni wrote:The less the Pens say in response, then the more the Pens FO think that this plan B is realistic.
The Pens can't negotiate a plan B with Rendell, but if they come out to the media and say what parts of the deal would be problematic then they're basically telling Rendell, Oranato and O'Connor to go back to the drawing board. If they say "We still feel that the Pittsburgh First plan along with IOC is the best for the city of Pittsburgh," then it's safe to assume Sawyer and Co are considering how that deal could possibly work.
Users browsing this forum: Jim and 10 guests