LS, my guess would be that his implication is that Vegas could tenably offer contracts to NCAA players that aren't SPCs, but they could do that now if that was their intention; I agree to the extent that I can't imagine the league would either consider the contract to be valid in the eyes of their governing bodies or be ok with accepting a team into their brethren that was already flaunting their CBA regulations that allow the center to hold in their tenuous above-anti-trust situation before admission, though.
That being said, and I'm perfectly willing to defer to knowledge rather than speculation here, are we sure that full member status is contingent on being fully "paid up"? If I took a mortgage out on my house, I would still be a member of my HOA and I still would hold responsibility for the liability related to a car I have a note out on. If they never make the payment, they're not a team, contracts become void; if they do make the payment, (anything else, frankly, would be an enormous shock to the NHL,) I can't see a great argument for curtailing their ability to act as a team as relates to an upcoming season where all parties overwhelming believe full membership will be an entirely non-issue.
Again, I don't know the answer, but I can't think of a reason that the NHL *couldn't* grant them full rights, or many compelling reasons as to why they wouldn't as relates to business that will be effecting future seasons where BKS will be a full governor or (way less likely) a non-factor.
Whether or not the last payment has been made on a team by a group that, at that point, will have paid *far* past the point of plausible retreat on their investment seems like a fairly hostile and pedantic sticking point, from my standpoint.