Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Sungold Gaming International (SGGNF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kidl who wrote (3098)	1/28/1999 1:58:00 AM
From: John Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5164

If I were the Tribal Council ... Let's pretend I'm the Tribal Council. Around about now, I imagine I might be having the following internal conversation with myself: 1: For the last few years, we've had a deal with SGI to help us get federal recognition and develop a casino. SGI has supported us financially for a long time, and though the FR process took longer than we expected, it's almost done. 2: In July '98, we agreed in writing to the Monroe county location. We all visited the site and agreed that it is an excellent location for our ancestral homeland and a casino. We were very pleased that SGI was able to option land in such a good location, and that they are willing to donate it to us. 3: In August '98 we agreed to retain the services of a new lawyer. He is expensive, but he promised to be a big help. 4: In December '98, SGI presented us with a proposal for the development of the Class III casino. It includes a fantastic land package not far from Detroit, a nationally recognized operator, economic feasibility studies, and all the financing we need. 5: Our lawyer doesn't like the SGI proposal, and has involved us in some questionable negotiation methods. 6: Now we're in deep trouble. We have a binding contract with SGI, and we have accepted their assistance, but our lawyer has suggested he can get a better deal with another company. Now we find out that we can't walk away and do another deal because SGI would commence litigation against us and any future ventures. This means that no other operator would be interested in us because they wouldn't risk the litigation. It's beginning to look like if we don't take control, we could be left out in the cold; with no deal, no casino, and lots of litigation and legal bills. This is definitely not turning out the way we expected. 7: Maybe we should reconsider what's going on here. Things were going fine until we retained that lawyer in August. Since then, there have been problems like: a: the lawyer told us he could go the Michigan Legislature in November to negotiate a compact with the other four Bands, but we weren't yet federally recognized yet so they told him to go away b: the lawyer attempted to convince the Romulus airport that we should have a casino there, but it turned out that we can't locate our ancestral homeland at the airport c: the lawyer told us that we would certainly achieve the effective date of federal recognition on Jan. 22, especially because he had an agreement with the city of Detroit that they would register no objection; so he bused us all to Washington for a celebration party; what a bummer, Detroit did make a comment, and there we were, all dressed up and no party ... 8: Maybe the deal with SGI wasn't so bad. They were offering money, land, an operator, and a chance to get on with it ASAP. Maybe our lawyer is not as good as we thought. Now we've got all kinds of endless legal problems. Maybe we should get on with the proposal that SGI is making. After all, it's what we really wanted in the first place. Great site, great revenues. SGI and the operator will only take 30 - 40% of the EBITDA revenues, so we'll get 60 - 70%. After 7 years, the whole project is ours. Even if the paperwork takes a while, the rewards will be more than worth it. Why are we messing around with this legal nonsense. Let's just go ahead with our original agreement. 9: Perhaps we should reconsider our choice of legal counsel? ......... Well, anyway, that's what I imagine the tribal council might be thinking to themselves about now. ......... P.S. The filing made by Detroit to the DOI turns out essentially to be a question regarding the location for the proposed ancestral homeland for the GLB. The filing is not technically a request for reconsideration (RR) because only interested parties can submit RR's. In order to be an interested party who can make an RR, the party needs to possess contiguous land or be a Band in the same region. Detroit's comment has turned out to be a request for adjudication as to whether it can be considered an interested party. In other words, Detroit wants to find out whether the proposed location is indeed contiguous to Detroit. Since the location is at Mile 9, I75; it is some distance from Detroit. The DOI has allotted until Feb. 27 to render it's decision regarding whether Detroit can be considered an interested party. Because the Toledo Beach location is not contiguous to the city of Detroit, it is almost certain that the the decision will be negative for Detroit (although it will be positive for Detroit in that the city will at least know that the proposed location is not a threat to Detroit casinos). The effective date will likely occur shortly after Feb. 27.