Oh come on, now you're reaching. You know as well as the rest of us that if Skeete actually believed it was a good deal he would say so.
The he didn't say "I don't recommend we proceed with this deal based on the tax initiative lapsing in 5 years" that has very little to do with it and moreso to do with he has run the numbers and the City can't afford it. "He said he doesn't recommend the deal" in it's entirety.
Again, I know you are hopeful and probably praying that the team stays but they are on borrowed time now.
Skeete's decision to present a lease agreement to council that he does not support raises some very interesting questions relating to the negotiating process. One would think that if he was not able to negotiate a lease agreement that he thinks the COG can live with, he would report back to city council on the failure to come to a suitable agreement with Jamison. Instead, he has prepared a lease agreement and submitted it, even though he would not advise council to accept it.
Now it makes me wonder about the reports that Jamison met with the four supportive city council members. At first, I thought that concerns raised about that meeting in relation to the "open meeting" law were petty. However, Skeete's opposition to this lease changes things if one considers the following possible scenario.
Skeete informs Jamison that he cannot agree with the final offer on the lease. Clark and co. find out that the lease negotiations have hit a standstill, and decide to meet privately with Jamison. Jamison welcomes the opportunity to do so, because it allows him to communicate directly with the city council members and gauge their level of support. He meets with them and finds out that they will support his lease if he threatens to walk away, and therefore sees no reason to negotiate further with Skeete - he already has the votes he needs in the bag.
The point is that by meeting with Jamison privately, the four council members might well have telegraphed their intentions to vote for the lease as it stood, thereby giving Jamison vital information that advantaged him in his negotiations with Skeete. Skeete would have no further leverage, other than to provide a recommendation to city council not to support the lease.
There are good reasons for "open meetings" laws. In this case, if a private businessman receives sufficient assurances from a majority of council members about their position on a crucial vote, it greatly strengthens his resolve in negotiations with the city.