Anonymous wrote:Too late.
Ted has poisoned the well with DC and MD fans and has shown his utter incompetence to VA fans.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Neither league would approve a move from DC to Baltimore. Not going to happen.
Ted will get his $500M for CaptialOne, DC will up security and other investment in the area and perhaps strike some incentives for Ted to get in on some of the RFK land for other parts of his dream.
Not a chance that they will risk the commies choosing National Harbor because they've promised development rights at RFK to Ted
Not all of RFK, just a portion where he could do the hotel and casino.
I would much rather Ted Leonsis donate money and design fees towards a scenic “great park” with lake at the RFK site in exchange for him pretty much taking over Chinatown. Let him build a state-of-the-art stunning sports and media complex worthy of his ego: along the lines of the new Clippers arena in Inglewood and with a casino hotel not unlike Biff Tannen’s casino hotel in Hill Valley. Wave the hight limit as well for the casino hotel which will add a new landmark for the DC skyline. (The mayor had previously but unsuccessfully tried to remove the height limit to spur economic development.)
The Wizards and Caps could play in Baltimore for two seasons while everything is under construction.
I’d also like to see Leonsis sponsor a stunning new boathouse on the Anacostia for all the local high school crew teams that desperately need one.
so crazy it could work!! I wonder if granting a height variance alone on a hotel could be a big incentive.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agree. But the more subtle point is what are the relevant strengths of the legal arguments. Given that each side is taking publicly the opposite position, I assume reasonable arguments exist on both sides. If the contracts are clear cut in favor of DC, then one wonders why Ted even tried going down this path. Perhaps, as with his failures in Richmond, Ted failed to do his due diligence. If DC has a strong argument, Ted will end up being a complete loser, by pissing off the fans without actually moving.
Again, if DC has a strong argument, why has Bowser attempted to placate Leonsis with $500 million? Tell Leonsis to return to Capital One and watch his teams play if the contract is ironclad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agree. But the more subtle point is what are the relevant strengths of the legal arguments. Given that each side is taking publicly the opposite position, I assume reasonable arguments exist on both sides. If the contracts are clear cut in favor of DC, then one wonders why Ted even tried going down this path. Perhaps, as with his failures in Richmond, Ted failed to do his due diligence. If DC has a strong argument, Ted will end up being a complete loser, by pissing off the fans without actually moving.
Again, if DC has a strong argument, why has Bowser attempted to placate Leonsis with $500 million? Tell Leonsis to return to Capital One and watch his teams play if the contract is ironclad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agree. But the more subtle point is what are the relevant strengths of the legal arguments. Given that each side is taking publicly the opposite position, I assume reasonable arguments exist on both sides. If the contracts are clear cut in favor of DC, then one wonders why Ted even tried going down this path. Perhaps, as with his failures in Richmond, Ted failed to do his due diligence. If DC has a strong argument, Ted will end up being a complete loser, by pissing off the fans without actually moving.
Again, if DC has a strong argument, why has Bowser attempted to placate Leonsis with $500 million? Tell Leonsis to return to Capital One and watch his teams play if the contract is ironclad.
Presumably the $500M would come with a further lease extension past 2047.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agree. But the more subtle point is what are the relevant strengths of the legal arguments. Given that each side is taking publicly the opposite position, I assume reasonable arguments exist on both sides. If the contracts are clear cut in favor of DC, then one wonders why Ted even tried going down this path. Perhaps, as with his failures in Richmond, Ted failed to do his due diligence. If DC has a strong argument, Ted will end up being a complete loser, by pissing off the fans without actually moving.
Again, if DC has a strong argument, why has Bowser attempted to placate Leonsis with $500 million? Tell Leonsis to return to Capital One and watch his teams play if the contract is ironclad.
Anonymous wrote:
Agree. But the more subtle point is what are the relevant strengths of the legal arguments. Given that each side is taking publicly the opposite position, I assume reasonable arguments exist on both sides. If the contracts are clear cut in favor of DC, then one wonders why Ted even tried going down this path. Perhaps, as with his failures in Richmond, Ted failed to do his due diligence. If DC has a strong argument, Ted will end up being a complete loser, by pissing off the fans without actually moving.