would have to move repaid but i'm even willing to look at the city council meetings the city of green to accept the purchase price and go forward at that point then they need agreement requiring them to the another case where they said that they said it in this very proceeding at its members hold that the court i'm sure is familiar with the old wrestling wrestling term you can't pick a position and have the whole litigation proceed down a dirt road which is where we have been for many years and then settle instead of taking the superhighway right to the point and that's exactly what's happened here so they'd be sure to preclude her from making any argument to the contrary about the fact that the zero five agreement in tells us to thousand five agreement is the only agreement currently before the court so i will leave it at that as far as the point of the court's order staying proceedings in paper for arbitration i think parties are great that you should reverse was based on a conclusion that one of the trial judge concluded that the city had reached its obligations under that two thousand and five forbearance or due diligence or if you got a five agreement what is your position on the full one point two nine million dollar price tag i would respectfully suggest that a more reasonable hour construction of that agreement particularly in light of the good faith language of construction that wouldn't if we're back out later even if we you know say a month later well gee we should have done their constituents are having a problem or something that you know what you take that go well there's some obligations required that if the alleged freeze on august twenty third two thousand and five there was a vote by the city council not to proceed with due diligence and her what is your  price with the comment that they would complete the due diligence and also that the resolution was conditioned by peg agreeing to forgive the loan and you know there was a huge expense that the city would have been occurring and the sec is very clear that the city had not incur any expense legally without a prior appropriation didn't quite follow the city's argument in a couple of respects and you know it seems to me that they are doubling down on what they get to the court the first time that they with the once had told the court that the only five support arbitration in this case should stop here but if it doesn't we have a right thing under the somebody in the home to be so a lot of the argument is really just metaphysical i mean it's it's almost offensive that she would start saying that what we did if you read would come a court's opinion again and come if we could say mission probably had we filed a claim under the ninety agreement because the court made it clear over and over and over again that it was done that had nothing to do with the case and now she's going to take that against but except for that we think the judge should have ruled that there was a bar based on a stop will and and log case and so on with respect to lack of appropriation but we're here asking this court to just this agreement the word out recently needs to be interpreted again it's not a model of clarity but if you look at the facts here there is no doubt that this city moon that it would have to pay us a loan and that's why we negotiated this agreement and we negotiated the right but the fact is this is make them tumbling down on me and manipulating the litigation process to prevent us from getting a remedy here they're the ones that started the whole lot more five agreement was the only agreement that ever has anything to do with the case another