Talk:John Spano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "SI" :
    • [[Alexander Wolff|Wolff, Alexander]]. [http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010487/index.htm Busted]. ''[[Sports Illustrated]]'', 1997-08-04.
    • Pickett and [[NHL Commissioner]] [[Gary Bettman]] thought that Spano would be a lifesaver for the Islanders. The once-proud franchise, best known for their meteoric rise from also-ran to four-time [[Stanley Cup]] champions, had missed the playoffs in five of the last eight years. They had also been suffering at the gate, and rumors abounded that they were about to move to [[Atlanta]], [[Nashville]] or [[Houston]]. Spano promised to keep the team in Long Island and either renovate, rebuild or replace the aging [[Nassau Coliseum]]. He paid for the team at signing with a loan from a syndicate of banks headed by [[FleetBoston|Fleet Bank]]. He and Pickett agreed to a five-year installment package for the cable rights, and the league's other owners approved the sale in February 1997. The first $16.5 million payment on the cable rights was due on [[April 7]]. The money wasn't there that day, but Spano promised Pickett it would be made, showing him a letter from [[Lloyds Bank]] in [[London]] promising that the money would be wired out. This was enough to satisfy Pickett, and he closed the deal. Even before the deal closed, Spano pumped $2.5 million into the team's payroll <ref>{{cite news |first=Robert |last=Lipsyte |authorlink=Robert Lipsyte |coauthors= |title=Spano Reflects on Deal Gone Awry, but There Is a Bright Side |url= |work=[[New York Times]] |date=1997-10-05 |accessdate=2008-01-17 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

convicted or admitted[edit]

HangingCurve, I noticed your recent change of the description in the lead from "convicted" to "admitted". In Australia, if an accused person pleads guilty to a crime they are considered convicted by their own admission, so the result is the same (i.e. a conviction). Is the terminology different in the United States? If not, then I think the lead should say "convicted" to make it clear that he has been in court and punished for the deeds. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is an important one--he pleaded guilty and avoided trial, and also confessed to his crimes. Saying "convicted" implies that he went to trial.HangingCurveSwing for the fence 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "convicted" just means a conviction has been recorded, whether it be by pleading guilty or going to trial and being found guilty. In 2014 he was described by prosecutors as having "prior convictions"; see this article. So I believe the fact that he was convicted (by his own admission) is more important than the fact that he made that admission. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]