Sorry, for me there is plenty of logic - the first is in any business agreement remove as many clauses/conditions as possible and whilst it doesn't mean you are not going to do them but gives you options.
The second and more psychological/brinkmanship reason is given some individuals have been very vocal re KT/DB running off with all the profits and not completing the stand the scenario pans out that he does indeed complete the stand as promised along with other positive actions like the training ground and he emerges the good guy whilst they just appear as naysayer with little remaining credibility. Of course the agenda will change - in fact it already has in that the same individual will be shouting "it should have been done sooner" or "it's a missed opportunity to do more with the land" etc etc - or perhaps with a significant degree of brass tech suggest it only happened because of their pressure..
I have never disagreed that it should have been done sooner and it would be great to have a more significant share of any land profits but I continue to disagree with the approach by some, since like it or not the owners have, and continue to hold most of the cards whilst working (being kind here) a weak and naive council.
I know some individuals will label my post as anti trust - it's not but until people can take even a little step aside from their own beliefs on how things should be done they will always interpret it as thus.
.....of course nothing has actually happened yet so I think there is still some milage to run.
I don't disagree with anything you have said there bar I'm not sure the council are as weak and naive as some people believe.
However, until Carlton or anyone else for that matter explain how the "No stand, No Land" clause could have ever been included in the improved CDNL offer the rest of the points you raise are kind of irrelevant. The question shouldn't be why it was removed but how could you include a clause that was no longer physically possible.
I suggest the reason that nobody ever answers that question is a) they don't understand the deal properly or b) it suits their argument to say it was done for nefarious reasons or maybe even both.
