So much for that deal...

Peruna_Ate_My_Rolex · Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:59 pm

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 863ab.html

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:01 am

Surely someone around Bush has a friend in the CIA who can make these guys quietly disappear.

RednBlue11 · Post by **RednBlue11** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:50 am

SMU Admin = Shady

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:01 am

Secretly trying to get rid of the Bush Library for our new indoor practice facility named after Vodika

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:54 am

So you want to call it the "Crappy old SOB, idiotic, time and money wasting, money grubbing, egotistical, lame brained indoor practice facility"?

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:55 am

I was naming it after Vodicka not Bush.

Ba da dum

MrMustang1965 · Post by **MrMustang1965** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 pm

Let Baylor have it. Closer to his ranch. Maybe it'll keep him out of Dallas.

NickSMU17 · Post by **NickSMU17** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:02 pm

He is already in dallas, and stop being dumb...this is a great asset for SMU...

PK · Post by PK » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:29 pm

I say screw these guys and get it back in court. How is not telling someone what you plan to do with the property after you buy it committing fraud...which seems to be a big part of their suit. It's not the seller's business. You negotiate your best deal and that is that. At the time SMU was buying up those condos there was no guarantee that SMU was going to be chosen as the site for the library. As it turned out the condo site is not being used for the library, but SMU always wanted that property anyway to prevent some commercial developer from cutting SMU off from Central Expw. These greedy blood suckers need to go back to court and lose...IMHO.

RednBlue11 · Post by **RednBlue11** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:32 am

see the seattle supersonic's situation...the former owner sued to get the team back after claiming that he was mislead...it ultimately didnt stand up but what a mess that turned out to be.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:17 am

Those of you who continue to think this is a "can't lose" lawsuit for SMU have your heads buried.

smu diamond m · Post by **smu diamond m** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:04 am

NickSMU17 wrote:He is already in dallas, and stop being dumb...this is a great asset for SMU...

+1

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:55 am

jtstang wrote:Those of you who continue to think this is a "can't lose" lawsuit for SMU have your heads buried.

New SMU mantra - Can't Win?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:56 am

Not at all, just saying that there was a reason the case settled in the first place, that being that somebody for SMU thought there was an exposure.

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:12 am

Sunshiner

So much for that deal...

So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...

Re: So much for that deal...