Until he comes out and actually disputes any of this, people are going to read whatever they want into his intentions. All this speculation is coming about because the guy hasn't opened his mouth yet publically. He could easily put a stop to it but hasn't, so I'm guessing he really wants to come off like a snake in the grass.
You guys are covering some of the jurisdictional issues amply - pretty darn well for non-lawyers, by the way - so I will not cover any of that.
What I do want to add, however, is something that IB unintentionally buried in his good discussion above of the Al Davis issues, which he quite correctly points out is widely assumed to be a win for Davis (based on his initial victory) when it is in fact something quite different (as it turned out in the second case). I will copy IB's informative post for ease of reference below:
Many of you remember (or know about) Al Davis moving the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982, then back to Oakland in 1995. In 1980, Davis and the L.A. Coliseum filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NHL, claiming that the league had no right to restrict Davis from moving his team to Los Angeles. After the first trial ended in a hung jury, a second jury ruled in favor of Davis et. al. and ordered the NFL to pay $35 million. (The two sides later settled for $18 million.) Davis and the Raiders moved to L.A. in 1982.
Davis never won $1 billion as some believe he did - it was $18 million.
In 1995, Davis decided to move back to Oakland, and the two sides swapped various lawsuits, with Davis filing a suit against the league for $1.2 billion claiming that the league conspired to scuttle a deal to allow the the Raiders to play at a proposed new stadium in Hollywood Park - a move that forced the team from the L.A. market - and that the league's actions were intentional and with malice. A jury heard the suit and ruled in favor of the NFL, against Davis. Calfornia Superior Court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial, citing citing juror misconduct - but the California Court of Appeals reinstated the verdict. (The case is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.)
The implications of that ruling:
-- It reinforced the NFL's authority as a governing body over all member teams, and
-- It established that the NFL - not the individual teams - control who can enter (and leave) a market, and on what terms.
Davis also sued the Alameda County Coliseum, claiming it had breached contractual promises for selling out the stadium - and asked for $1 billion in damages. A jury initially awarded $34 million in damages, but an appeals court threw out the verdict by pointing out that Davis and the Raiders subsequently signed a contract with the Coliseum after the alleged damages were incurred and that the new deal compensated him for such damages - so he could not collect damages on the initial breach as a result.
I have identified the truly relevant part above.
Here is what happened in that situation. Before moving back to Oakland, Davis was angling to get the city to build him a new stadium in LA. However, what happened is that the NFL decided to start talking about the expansion of the league by two teams [NOTE: is this starting to resemble contemporary events, anyone?]. As a result of that talk, the city basically dropped discussions with Davis and started to focus on acquiring an expansion team. {Ultimately, LA did not get an expansion franchise, but that was due to the LA groups dropping the ball more than any other reason, and it certainly was not because the League did not want a team there}.
Effectively, what the league was planning to do was to drop an expansion team right in Davis' back yard in LA.
Needless to say, the effect on Davis' leverage against LA and to a lesser extent Oakland (who he was playing off against LA at the time) was significant. Many dollars that would have found their way into Davis' pocket did not do so, although he still got a decent chunk from Oakland anyway.
I expect I do not need to explain it further for many of you more sophisticated members, but for those others, here is the point. When Davis bullied his way into LA in the face of the the LA Rams' territorial rights, and got away with it without having to pay anything, he was screwing himself. By saying that there is no such thing as territorial rights, he is also conceding that
he himself has no territorial rights. By threatening to drop an expansion franchise right on top of him, Davis was either screwed in his leverage or, in the worst case scenario, left with a horribly fractured market.
Now ... as far as what this may have to do with the current NHL scenario? Well, aside from the obviously identical scenario regarding expansion teams that has been floated by "sources" which seems to eerily echo the NFL's tactics, one should probably ask oneself the following question:
For all the assumptions around here that a team in Hamilton or KW would be an instant success, is there anything which would seriously impact the ability of a team in those locales to survive? Is there anything which would impact on those supposed swarms of corporations and fans who would traipse down the 401/403 for 60-90 minutes to go watch hockey in those other cities?
Answer: an expansion team in Mississauga.
IMO, an expansion team in Mississauga would drive a stake through a Hamilton or KW team. It would kill it. Stone dead.
Keep in mind that there would never actually HAVE to be an expansion team in Mississauga. As long as there is talk of it, that could at least be enough to prevent companies from making 10-year commitments for boxes, sponsorships, etc.
Some might think that all this sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one 's face. Let me suggest to you that the ability to control markets is critical to a sports league. Without it, there is chaos. Witness the NFL ultimately stomping a mudhole on Davis and walking it dry in the end game.
I hope that this explains why it would be a horrible strategy for Balsillie to pursue such an avenue of attack IMO. Hopefully, it also explains the curious-to-some leak regarding expansion franchises.