Photo Courtesy of Alex Snell

Two Lame Duck Seasons to Remember By The Same Team?
Or Have They Been Lame Duck Seasons Ever Since Leaving Winnipeg?

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.

This issue trumps all others in importance as it deals directly with the asset for sale firstly. Character issues for ownership votes, scheduling concerns, the Toronto veto issue, relocation fees and timing, the musical chairs exercise better known as “which creditors are on board with which bids” are all much smaller in magnitude and aren't core issues with all bidders and all creditors. But the asset for sale and what can be severed from it is the core issue. Besides must of these other points were smokescreen efforts by most sides in this confrontation where only the lawyers winning by billing by the word both written and spoken.

Therefore, the court cannot sever those aspects of the NHL's Coyotes in order to sell it to any interest. The judge will rule this way, since it follows franchising law and licencing agreements. Under this understanding the bid highest that follows this ruling will win.

Surprise! It's neither Balsillie nor the NHL, as both bids want to potentially relocate the team. The winner is the dark horse, Ice Edge Holdings! Additionally, since its' $150 million offer beats the NHL's $140 million offer, it still comes out on top given that both wish to play of out Phoenix for at least 1 season, should the judge allow for this technicality.

Of course this assumes that the IEH bid, the only non-relocating bid, will have a lease agreement in place for at least 1 season of play. If it doesn't then the judge will probably rule in favour of the NHL to receive its' franchise back as it could have easily revoked the franchise via the NHL constitution and paid out creditors before, during and potentially after the team went into bankruptcy. In a sense that would be coming to fruition now.

Yes those were the same months bailing out the Coyotes that the NHL said ad nauseum that all was peachy-keen in the Valley of the Sun.

On the other hand, for the judge to choose a bid on other grounds, would set a massive precedent that could be used widely by any party wanting to join an existing partnership should a franchise or a portion of their collective interest become available via a sale, bankruptcy or not. This would never survive a constitutional challenge in Canada as the freedom to gather and privately associate will trump that sort of ruling. And I would really doubt that that decision would survive a challenge of democratic rights of private assembly in the USA.

To no one's surprise, the NHL certainly comes out of this looking like it suffers upper body injuries with concussion-like effects. The NHL could have revoked or moved the franchise during this summer, but the league decided to secretly prop the team up with cash from about last November to present day. The secrecy was foolish since most NHL fans league-wide knew that a capsize in the desert was about to occur. (Note to Commissioner Mr. Bettman: The proper process when your failed teams are about to collapse is to relocate them to cities ready willing and able to support them. Hint: Call on Winnipeg!)

Lastly, by the scoreclock Jim Balsillie is down 3 franchises to none. Certainly it looks bleak as to how the Blackberries could come back to win this seven game series, but rumour has it that winning just one would be enough to feel vindicated. The plight of the fans in Hamilton deserves sympathy. They must be developing a callousness to hearing when their town is mentioned for NHL expansion and relocation now since 1990. Maybe the NHL will port a team there just to shut Balsillie out of future gambits?

Now could we get back to talking about on-ice matters before the next failed franchise is declared by league brass to be peachy-keen? Remember: Call on Winnipeg!

Differences in opinion are welcome down at the Manitoba Mythbuster Forum. Share yours today! www.mbmbforum.com

Chris
Chair, Manitoba Mythbusters
www.ManitobaMythbusters.com
www.myNHLincludesWinnipeg.com

~ The Reality May Surprise You! Excite You! ~