With your 'typo' post, I went back to discover I'd missed your response.
As I didn't put the date there, I don't know for sure. Maybe they just left it as is pending the court's decision. But the date there has little meaning until the subsequent agreements with the court and the debtor, Moyes took place and only if those subsequent decisions tied to it - which I strongly suspect they would not.
It's not as simple an issue as it might appear - to try to extend it a year. For example, some contracts may expire before June 30, 2011. Other contracts may experience some sort of hardship having the contract tied up for another year, etc. The extended date may have some effect on the details or terms within the various contracts. And naturally, Moyes and probably the judge would like to be done with it asap as well.
The important date would be the one the debtor, the judge, the NHL, the city of Glendale & all the other creditors agreed to. Because that date had not been decided by all the parties when the deal between the NHL and city of Glendale got put together, I doubt the date in their agreement has much weight. It would be superseded by what all the parties agreed to or the judge dictated when the issue got addressed by the court.