Comment 86344

By adrian (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 08:40:48 in reply to Comment 86327

I'm guessing this is sarcasm, since this is obviously not in the original HECFI agreement. It's the text of the email to Jason Farr from Frank Russo.

This discussion is a little off-base, in my opinion:

I'm waiting with baited breath to see if all the same people who criticized the TiCats for a "private enterprise holding a city hostage" will take the same approach here.

Threatening to leave town altogether, like the Ticats did, is not the same thing as indicating you will seek to renegotiate a portion of a contract.

They signed a contract to run venues. They are suggesting the contract was incumbent on no casino.

Nowhere in the article does it say this. Global Spectrum says they "would seek contractual relief for the subsidy reduction" if a downtown casino goes forward. They understand they are bound by a contract to reduce subsidies, but are saying that they would seek to renegotiate that part of the contract.

Typically, any contract can be renegotiated by the parties in the contract for any reason at any time. The question is whether or not the renegotiation would be successful. In this case, one possible argument would be that they were not given all of the relevant information they needed to make an informed business decision. This understanding may also be reflected in the original contract.

Here's the "hold-hostage clause"

It's not a "clause", it's a message that warns of a possible attempt to renegotiate a portion of the contract.

a threat of legal action is not holding someone hostage

It's also not really a "threat of legal action". Typically I would consider "legal action" in this context to be a lawsuit. No one is saying (at least in the article above) that they will launch a lawsuit.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds