Update Again Again: OPACY lease officially official, done and approved, for real this time

[ThisIsBirdland]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So they lied. 
 

It’s going to get done but they lied on a big night…and they had to get their camera time..for a lie.

 

It’s frustrating don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see it as a lie. It’s an agreement between the parties that needs to be formalized but I doubt that’s uncommon. I think it was dumb to announce it in a public manner before it was fully executed but I wouldn’t call that a lie. 

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

It’s frustrating don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see it as a lie. It’s an agreement between the parties that needs to be formalized but I doubt that’s uncommon. I think it was dumb to announce it in a public manner before it was fully executed but I wouldn’t call that a lie. 

No, it’s a lie. They specifically said, we have agreed to a new 30 year lease. They haven’t.

Therefore it’s a lie.

Its going to get done and it was always going to get done but it’s not done and last night, they made it seem like it was done.

[schittenden]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

No, it’s a lie. They specifically said, we have agreed to a new 30 year lease. They haven’t.

Therefore it’s a lie.

Its going to get done and it was always going to get done but it’s not done and last night, they made it seem like it was done.

Technically, the announcement said they signed a “deal”, it did not use the term “lease.”

[bigdan]

1 hour ago, yark14 said:

The cycle of BS continues. 

Its basically a pinky promise.

[bigdan]

1 hour ago, Going Underground said:

The Banner article has more detail. So the Orioles will pay no rent and the state will give them the money for the maintenance of the stadium. That is a nice deal .

 

O's lease deal falls short of expectations set by announcement - The Baltimore Banner
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/politics-power/state-government/orioles-lease-deal-details-7AUF7YTRLRHVXEHCOUWOPZVWKM/

Wes Moore gave away a stadium that the people of Maryland have been paying for, for over 30yrs.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, schittenden said:

Technically, the announcement said they signed a “deal”, it did not use the term “lease.”

 

Nothing is technically done. They didn’t reach a deal. They reached a framework where a deal is going to get done and it’s just a matter of finishing it off…but it’s not done.

This was a PR stunt where they lied about what is actually reality.

[Can_of_corn]

23 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

It’s frustrating don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see it as a lie. It’s an agreement between the parties that needs to be formalized but I doubt that’s uncommon. I think it was dumb to announce it in a public manner before it was fully executed but I wouldn’t call that a lie. 

It's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation where they attempt to fool people into thinking one thing happened when something else happened.

If you don't want to call that a lie, I guess I can't make you.

[yark14]

8 minutes ago, bigdan said:

Wes Moore gave away a stadium that the people of Maryland have been paying for, for over 30yrs.

There needs to be some sort of profit sharing with the city and state if Little John is going to continue to keep the payroll low and pocket the revenue sharing checks from the MLB.

Edited September 29, 2023 by yark14

[Going Underground]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Nothing is technically done. They didn’t reach a deal. They reached a framework where a deal is going to get done and it’s just a matter of finishing it off…but it’s not done.

This was a PR stunt where they lied about what is actually reality.

It says the MSA and the State of Maryland has agreed to a deal. Both entities have to have a vote on it before they can agree to a deal. So that part on the scoreboard is an untruth. Unless they voted and didn't tell anyone which is illegal.

[ThisIsBirdland]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation where they attempt to fool people into thinking one thing happened when something else happened.

If you don't want to call that a lie, I guess I can't make you.

Read the actual statement. They said they have an agreement in place that will keep the team in Baltimore for 30 more years. That's a fact (as in, not a lie), even if it's a non-binding agreement. The parties are in agreement on the overall framework of a deal. I don't think it's any different from when a team agrees to a deal with a free agent and announces it before a contract is executed.

Should they have announced this apparent "breakthrough" prior to finalizing the entire formal agreement? I honestly don't know, because plenty of people (myself included) read it and assumed what you assumed. But that doesn't mean it was a lie, or anything was presented to obfuscate the issues. They reached an agreement, that's an important step (probably the most important), and that's all they announced.

 

[accinfo]

10 minutes ago, yark14 said:

There needs to be some sort of profit sharing with the city and state if Little John is going to continue to keep the payroll low and pocket the revenue sharing checks from the MLB.

There isn’t going to be any kind of profit sharing.  The state has no leverage to demand that.  The building is useless unless there is a major league team playing in it.  The benefit to the state of that is the positive effect it has on the area as far as jobs, sales tax revenue, etc.  So them paying no rent but having to pay for expenses isn’t that shocking.  The Ravens will get the same deal.  You can argue whether it is worth it to have major league sports or not but it isn’t like they have a choice of tenants to pick from.

[waroriole]

23 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation where they attempt to fool people into thinking one thing happened when something else happened.

If you don't want to call that a lie, I guess I can't make you.

A ruse?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

Read the actual statement. They said they have an agreement in place that will keep the team in Baltimore for 30 more years. That's a fact (as in, not a lie), even if it's a non-binding agreement. The parties are in agreement on the overall framework of a deal. I don't think it's any different from when a team agrees to a deal with a free agent and announces it before a contract is executed.

Should they have announced this apparent "breakthrough" prior to finalizing the entire formal agreement? I honestly don't know, because plenty of people (myself included) read it and assumed what you assumed. But that doesn't mean it was a lie, or anything was presented to obfuscate the issues. They reached an agreement, that's an important step (probably the most important), and that's all they announced.

 

I read the actual statement.  That is why I said it was an attempt at obfuscation in which they tried to fool people into thinking something has happened that hasn't.

That statement is designed to make it appear that the deal is completed when it isn't.

I think you know as well as I do that sometimes teams announce a free agent deal and it doesn't actually happen.

[Frobby]

It’s not unusual to have a written “agreement in principle,” “memorandum of understanding,” etc. before a full contract with all the details is signed.  In fact, when a public company signs something like that, it’s considered sufficiently material that it has to be disclosed in an SEC filing, even when the deal isn’t final.  So, I’m not surprised they announced this.  The Commanders sale was announced at a similar stage.  But I do agree that the wording of the announcement made it seem as though there was little more to be done, when in fact there’s a lot of details to work out. 

[Sports Guy]

They either shouldn’t have announced it or they should have said, we have reached an agreement in principle on a new lease deal and it will soon be finalized.

Just tell the truth about exactly what you did. Instead, you lied. You embellished. Typical political bs.