A person cannot sell what is not theirs to sell.Given the legal manoeverings in an Arizona courthouse full of suits, a website stirring up Canadian NHL fans and anti-Maple Leafs sentiment, 24/7 blogging and real-time blow by blow jousting by the myriad of parties, it is easy to forget that simple reality.But NHL fans, especially Jim Balsillie’s supporters, would be OFFside to forget this basic truth and what it may mean.As the NHL constitution reads a franchise is a licence to operate a team in a given area. Under a relocation vote, only then could a team be considered to be removed from one area (and that territory goes back to the league as a future opportunity) and moved to a new area (which is its' BOG-voted and mandated territory amending its' license). So that is why Jerry Moyes can't sell something which he doesn't own: any territory outside of Phoenix.And this is the ultimate point, in buying a sports franchise of a given league you are essentially buying its' licence agreement. Part of the agreement is to abide by the rules of the NHL constitution and by-laws.So using the court to overrule the NHL constitution statutes on ownership votes and also relocation votes is somewhat selective or arbitrary. The team is inherently part of the league and its constitution. So to break certain constitution statutes leads me to believe that the sum of the team isn't really being sold. A new business partner would be forced on the league by bypassing its' own constitution. By adding in the other dimension, of a subsequent relocation, other NHL constitution statutes would be by-passed. Only the parts the bidder wants to accept are being attempted to being bought, not the team collectively via its' licensing agreement. more »