Final argument for moving Penguins -- could be more "iron clad" if the Pens owned the new building

Isle of Capri makes final argument for license ... the agreement between the Penguins and the Isle of Capri required any new owner to stay in Pittsburgh for at least 20 years if casino operator wins the coveted license.

'Anybody who buys [the Penguins] is required to step into their shoes,' he said.

He added that any potential owner who breaks the agreement could be subject to liquidated damages -- hundreds of millions of dollars, according to one estimate -- and possible court action to block any move.

The "at least 20 years" deal and the liquidation is something to bank upon. But, the outlook of saying, 'we'll sue' doesn't give much confidence.

I think the Pens should plan, design, build, and keep the new arena. Then the team can sell the seats, program it, insure it, heat it, upgrade it and do as they wish with the new building without needing to get the lame stadium and exhibition authority involved.

Then, should the Penguins want to move out of town, they'd have to manage a liquidation of the new arena.

The word on the street is that it will take $7-million to tear down the Civic Arena.

If the Penguins left town and had a building in Pittsburgh, perhaps we'd be sure to get a minor-league team associated with the Pens to play here.

Perhaps the Penguins leave in 2012 and want to tear down its building that opened in 2009. Fine. They could do that -- if -- they didn't tear down the Civic Arena in 2008 or 2009. The Civic Arena is a building that the Penguins do not own. The Pens only have a lease.

When a renter leaves an apartment that had been rented, even for a long time, the lease holder can't demolish the property. Moving out makes a vacancy, not an ownership switch.