Canada's Competition Bureau investigating the NHL's franchise relocation policies?

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
It does not have the right to declare that Buffalo cannot be compensated for such a move - and you can bet the Sabres and the NHL aren't going to settle cheaply if Balsille pulls an end-run with this.

Besides ... while the NHL has a league office in Toronto, the official headquarters are in New York City ... in the United States. (The meaning of this becomes clear below.)


And vice versa. In the end, Balsille is going to have to get approval from the BoG for any move - if they say "no" and he sues to get approval, there will be a huge fight over jurisdiction; since the team is in Nashville (in the U.S.) and the league is headquarted in NYC (in the U.S.), I'd bet the house that any lawsuit would have to be filed in the U.S. - meaning precedent has been set in favor of the league, and ... as you so eloquently pointed out, any Canadian rulings will have no impact.

In fact, I'd bet my neighbor's houses that the NHL By-Laws contains a provision that any action against the League itself must be filed in the United States. Of course, should Balsille get to that point, it's quite likely that he'll be in a fight with Nashville over the lease - meaning one side will sue the other over it. If Balsille loses that fight, it's a guarantee he'll be shelling out millions in damages to Nashville.

The moral of this story: in the end, it really doesn't matter what Balsille thinks/wants or the CCB thinks/says, any move of a team from the U.S. to Canada is going to have to go through the Board of Governors - and playing really nice is going to be a part of it. Should there be any dispute, the fight will have to go through U.S. courts, where precedent is established in favor of the NHL ... and where Balsille is going to have to mount one hell of an argument to overcome that precedent. "I want to move the team and the league won't let me" won't cut it.

This is a very complicated legal issue involving the NHL's constitution and by-laws, competition/anti-trust laws of two countries, jurisdiction of courts, conflict of laws (private international law), etc. It is not as simple as your post would seem to indicate. I don't believe it's a given that Buffalo would be entitled to any compensation for a franchise relocation to Canada.

GHOST
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
This is a very complicated legal issue involving the NHL's constitution and by-laws, competition/anti-trust laws of two countries, jurisdiction of courts, conflict of laws (private international law), etc. It is not as simple as your post would seem to indicate. I don't believe it's a given that Buffalo would be entitled to any compensation for a franchise relocation to Canada.

GHOST
Of course, the league could short circuit all those complexities by requiring an agreement by Balsillie to it's current interpretaion of it's rules and bylaws as a precondition to approving the sale to Balsillie.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Of course, the league could short circuit all those complexities by requiring an agreement by Balsillie to it's current interpretaion of it's rules and bylaws as a precondition to approving the sale to Balsillie.

And you are missing the point kdb209. There is no requiring an agreement if Balsillie balks and challenges the validity of those NHL's rules and by-laws as "preconditions" to the sale. Then the whole matter ends up in the courts or arbitration.

GHOST
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
You're missing a distinction here. While they may well retain a right to declare that Buffalo needs to be compensated, they can't exercise that right if it violates Canadian law. Jurisdiction is a wooly topic but the territorial rights that Buffalo is purporting to exercise are in Canada. My instincts tell me that it's the location of the territory over which Buffalo claims an interest that will define jurisdiction as opposed to the location of Buffalo. That's the logical, jurisdiction friendly answer.
If the League By-Laws require any lawsuit to be filed in the U.S., then any lawsuit must be filed in the U.S. Period. When purchasing a team, prospective owners must sign various papers - one of which is a document stating that the prospective owners agrees to abide by all of the By-Laws. Balsille won't be able to sign that paper, then claim "Oh - I didn't know that provision was there" or "Hey - that's not fair, I don't like it ... I want it thrown out." It's an "all or nothing" deal, and considering the NHL is a privately-controlled entity, it can choose who gets to own a team and under what conditions.

Again, I'd like to see the case law on this as it relates to jurisdiction. There's probably a case to be made for jurisdiction each way - the fact that Balsillie wants to move to Canada suggests to me that it's Canadian law that should be applied. The NHL's presence in NYC is the weakest part of your argument, I think - there's ONT case law saying that if you choose to set up business here, we'll take jurisdiction over you. The NHL obviously has no problem setting up business in ONT.
See above. Even though Citibank may have offices in all 50 states and in countries around the world, the "terms and conditions" you get when you sign up for one of their credit cards clearly states that if you decide to file a lawsuit against the company, it must be filed in ____ location. You get a card, you agree to that provision. It's that simple - which ... again, if the League By-Laws spell out where a lawsuit is to be filed, reduces any discussions about it to trivial ones.

This might be the strongest possibility but I've got some doubts, given the league's presence in Canada. I don't see that the lease is necessarily connected to the league issue - regardless of whether the lease conditions are satisfied, the league has an interest in protecting the territorial rights, because that's part of what it has to sell to prospective owners.
Re-read my comments ... the lease would in fact be a separate issue - one that would have to be argued in the U.S. since the dispute would be originating from there. You can't rent from a landlord in Maryland, move to Texas, and then sue your landlord there - the dispute took place in Maryland, so that state has jurisdiction.

As I've said above, I disagree with your comments about jurisdiction. That said, the element of risk cuts both ways - I saw this as a bit of a warning shot - if you read the story, you'll see the CCB has shut down previous investigations. This is a just a tool that I suspect Balsillie is using as leverage. There's a risk to him if the ruling cuts against him; there's a significant risk to the NHL if it cuts against them. At some point, the BOG members will presumably start to think "Why do I want to risk the territorial exclusivity because it will screw the Maple Leafs?"
Disagree all you want - the fact is, if the NHL spells out where lawsuits must be filed, any ruling by the CCB will carry little if any weight in a U.S. court for the reasons I described above.

That's a very good point. I was going to respond to IB, but had a hockey game to watch and as you mention it's a complicated issue involving jurisdiction, conflict of laws, etc. But your basic point seems a sound one. How is the Buffalo franchise going to claim a right to territory which is not even in the USA and how is the Canadian legal system not going to have a say in the issue. The idea that Buffalo has a right to be compensated for a franchise relocation in another country is far from certain.
The question is whether or not Buffalo's market is infringed. Even if the destination is Canada, the originating and affected markets are in the U.S., and as such a U.S. court would have every ability to make a ruling on whether or not Buffalo's market was harmed in any move.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Of course, the league could short circuit all those complexities by requiring an agreement by Balsillie to it's current interpretaion of it's rules and bylaws as a precondition to approving the sale to Balsillie.

Good luck enforcing that.
Again ... see comments above. It's a condition of purchasing the team required of every owner; should Balsille decide to cry foul and take the league to court, Gary Bettman and Bill Daly will be laughing the entire time as the court says ":rolleyes: - no, Jim ... you were given a copy of the terms, you knew about those terms, , you signed an agreement to abide by them ... so tough luck."
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Speculation is fun so I'll give a try here of making a case for the intelligence of Balsillies' moves. I have no idea if the below is correct. As I just said, this is just for fun.

- 220 million offer

Balsillie is playing a high stakes game of poker with the BOG. He's making it hard for them to say no. Everyone knows a franchise in Nashiville is not worth anything near that.

- leaks re Copps and Competition Bureau; Balsillie's lack of public statements

Balsillie is sending a message to Predator fans and Nashville's business community, that his intention is to move the team and therefore they should just give up and face the inevitable.

Balsillie is again playing a high stakes game of poker with the BOG. "I have a plan. I have my lawyers working on it. I will not give up and I will use my lawyers to the extent necessary to achieve my goals."

The end game may not even be Hamiltion. It could very will be K/W or somewhere in Toronto even.

GHOST
GHOST, why would you assume that it is Balsillie's side that is leaking the Copps and Competition inquiry matters? I strongly suspect people are making a big mistake assuming that.
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
The NHL has franchises like a restaurant or grocery store chain. I am sure that McDonalds would prevent someone opening one too close to another existing franchise.


Absolutely true, has anyone ever seen two Wal-Marts within a block of each other. What a waste of taxpayers money having this investigated. Our wonderful Canadian Government at work !!!

ps. what do you think Balsillie chances are of ever getting his ownership approved by the NHL when this seems to be his approach in respect to other owners. :shakehead

Do not know what his motive is but Balsillie shud stick to Blackberrys.
 
Last edited:

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
GHOST, why would you assume that it is Balsillie's side that is leaking the Copps and Competition inquiry matters? I strongly suspect people are making a big mistake assuming that.
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.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MayDay

Registered User
Oct 21, 2005
12,661
1,146
Pleasantville, NY
How is the Buffalo franchise going to claim a right to territory which is not even in the USA and how is the Canadian legal system not going to have a say in the issue. The idea that Buffalo has a right to be compensated for a franchise relocation in another country is far from certain.

Come on now, don't be naive. There is Canadian land within a half-mile or HSBC Arena.

If we follow your line of reasoning, someone could build a hockey rink in Fort Erie, Ca., practically within slapshot range of HSBC Arena, and put an NHL team there, and the Sabres wouldn't get any say or compensation just because Canada is a sovereign country?

That just doesn't make any sense.

Besides, it's evident that Buffalo does have a vested interest in this nearby territory. Last I checked, about 20-25% of Sabres season-ticket holders come from across the river in southern Ontario. So these territorial rights exist for a reason.
 

mr. Blase

Registered User
Jun 6, 2007
44
0
Ontario
GHOST, why would you assume that it is Balsillie's side that is leaking the Copps and Competition inquiry matters? I strongly suspect people are making a big mistake assuming that.

Given the Pittsburg situation last year, it was shocking when the Copps stuff was leaked. But Balsillie and his advisors must have a plan?

It would be informative to all this speculation to know who is leaking this stuff. And who called the competition board in the first place? Unlikely they just started an investigation themselves. Any thoughts?
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Think about it ... Balsille & Co. leak out reports that he has a deal, getting Predators fans to think "crap - there goes the team." They stay away as a result, pushing attendance down under 14,000. He then goes to the league 2 years later and says, "See - the fans won't support the NHL in Nashville, I can't survive there ... I need to be allowed to move the team" and the league gives the go-ahead as a result.

In effect, he intentionally acts to destroy support in the current market so he can move the team to his desired market without it looking like he's just ripping a team out of a city that's beginning to really show support for the NHL; it's also a tactic that, unless he's got e-mails discussing that plan (which I'm sure won't exist), makes it incredibly difficult for Nashville to sue him for damages.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
ps. what do you think Balsillie chances are of ever getting his ownership approved by the NHL when this seems to be his approach in respect to other owners. :shakehead

I would expect the only two owners who will have a major problem with this scenario are the owners of the Leafs and the Sabres. The other 27 owners are not threatened by such a move, nor will they ever be so threatened, as there isn't another region where this is feasable.

Moreover, the other 27 owners are likely to be more concerned about how this sale makes them all richer men, given that Balsillie is driving the price of the NHL's weakest market through the roof. That will have an inflationary effect on everyone else. Also, the more conditions the BoG places on allowing a franchise sale, the harder it becomes for them to sell their own teams when the time comes. It can be a self-defeating plan.

And, of course, there is the thought that if an NHL team in Hamilton or K-W is going to generate more revenue for the NHL than a team in Nashville does, it will have an affect on how everyone does their business, who gets revenue sharing, and how much of it, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why the BoG would approve this sale. In some cases, I would even think specifically screwing Toronto would factor in.
 

vivianmb

Registered User
Jan 10, 2007
2,891
2
winnipeg
www.whocares.ca
Think about it ... Balsille & Co. leak out reports that he has a deal, getting Predators fans to think "crap - there goes the team." They stay away as a result, pushing attendance down under 14,000. He then goes to the league 2 years later and says, "See - the fans won't support the NHL in Nashville, I can't survive there ... I need to be allowed to move the team" and the league gives the go-ahead as a result.

In effect, he intentionally acts to destroy support in the current market so he can move the team to his desired market without it looking like he's just ripping a team out of a city that's beginning to really show support for the NHL; it's also a tactic that, unless he's got e-mails discussing that plan (which I'm sure won't exist), makes it incredibly difficult for Nashville to sue him for damages.

this makes sense to me. he's trying to make the lease a non-issue.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
I would expect the only two owners who will have a major problem with this scenario are the owners of the Leafs and the Sabres. The other 27 owners are not threatened by such a move, nor will they ever be so threatened, as there isn't another region where this is feasable.

Moreover, the other 27 owners are likely to be more concerned about how this sale makes them all richer men, given that Balsillie is driving the price of the NHL's weakest market through the roof. That will have an inflationary effect on everyone else. Also, the more conditions the BoG places on allowing a franchise sale, the harder it becomes for them to sell their own teams when the time comes. It can be a self-defeating plan.

And, of course, there is the thought that if an NHL team in Hamilton or K-W is going to generate more revenue for the NHL than a team in Nashville does, it will have an affect on how everyone does their business, who gets revenue sharing, and how much of it, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why the BoG would approve this sale. In some cases, I would even think specifically screwing Toronto would factor in.

Not to mention that the NHLPA would be very supportive as well since this move would likely improve revenues, and hence the players pocketbooks.

Carpenter is correct WRT Mississauga. To me, the BEST location is a suburban Toronto team, with Mississauga being the most likely location. You still put the Arena off the 401, so it would still be easily accessible from K-W (30-40 minutes instead of 1.5 hours). You also get guaranteed and complete access to the TO TV market, and, by branding it Mississauga, I think you get alot of the Mississauga HQed companies jumping on board, not to mention alot of fans from Mississauga.

As someone from Gloucester (A suberb of Ottawa), my first recollection in residence in Waterloo was the outrage when you said someone from Mississauga was from Toronto! I think they get behind a Mississauga team BIG TIME.

The only problem with the Saug are the territorial fees to the Leafs, which are considerable. An expansion team would have to pay that fee as well, so I don't think it is a big hammer for the NHL as gscarpenter suggests.but the possibility does exist. In short, I think the only 2 possible locations in S. Ontario are K-W OR Mississauga. If you are paying the territorial fee anyways, Mississauga makes WAAAAYYY more sense than Hamilton, and if you arn't paying the fee, you gotta go to K-W, not Hamilton.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Given the Pittsburg situation last year, it was shocking when the Copps stuff was leaked. But Balsillie and his advisors must have a plan?

It would be informative to all this speculation to know who is leaking this stuff. And who called the competition board in the first place? Unlikely they just started an investigation themselves. Any thoughts?
According to Teresa Tedesco, the reporter who broke the story and was herself interviewed today on FAN590, the Competition folks already had a file open on the NHL due to the Pens scenario last year, as well as a review that took place in 1993 when Pocklington threatened to move the Oliers. She felt it was entirely likely that they did it on their own initiative.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
I would expect the only two owners who will have a major problem with this scenario are the owners of the Leafs and the Sabres. The other 27 owners are not threatened by such a move, nor will they ever be so threatened, as there isn't another region where this is feasable.

Moreover, the other 27 owners are likely to be more concerned about how this sale makes them all richer men, given that Balsillie is driving the price of the NHL's weakest market through the roof. That will have an inflationary effect on everyone else. Also, the more conditions the BoG places on allowing a franchise sale, the harder it becomes for them to sell their own teams when the time comes. It can be a self-defeating plan.

And, of course, there is the thought that if an NHL team in Hamilton or K-W is going to generate more revenue for the NHL than a team in Nashville does, it will have an affect on how everyone does their business, who gets revenue sharing, and how much of it, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why the BoG would approve this sale. In some cases, I would even think specifically screwing Toronto would factor in.
The first flaw in this line of thinking: that the other 27 owners really don't care. Far from it - because it could be their market in the future that's similarly affected. Sure, the chances of a 2nd team in Miami are really, really small - but don't ignore the fact that the owners are going to be looking out for each other lest they be the ones in that situation down the road.

While the offering price for the Predators is indeed high, recall that the Ducks were sold for just $75 million in 2005 - so that's not going to be as much of a factor as one might think. While the Predators might end up selling for $225 million, it doesn't matter to Eugene Melnyk if he puts the Senators on the market and the highest offer is only $175 million. Just like you may have a baseball card that Beckett says is worth $1,000 ... it's only worth $1,000 if you can find someone else to give you that much for it.

Would a K-M franchise generate more revenue than Nashville does right now? Probably - but while that would push revenues up, it would also push the cap up at the same time; considering Edmonton has said they need the cap lower to make it easier to generate profits, I doubt they're the only team in that boat - and revenue sharing will only fix so much of that problem. (It would definitely take the Nashville/K-M franchise off the list of teams who get revenue sharing, but the resulting increase in revenues could easily push someone else on that list.)

Finally: if you think the rest of the BoG would love to screw Toronto over ... :rolleyes:
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
The first flaw in this line of thinking: that the other 27 owners really don't care. Far from it - because it could be their market in the future that's similarly affected. Sure, the chances of a 2nd team in Miami are really, really small - but don't ignore the fact that the owners are going to be looking out for each other lest they be the ones in that situation down the road.

The risk of someone wanting to put a second team in Miami, Edmonton or Detroit is miniscule. Certantly it is a possibility, but I am confident that it wont be an issue in the minds of the other 27 owners. Why eliminate immediate rewards for fear of an even greater long shot than Rick's Natural Star winning the Breeders Cup?

While the offering price for the Predators is indeed high, recall that the Ducks were sold for just $75 million in 2005 - so that's not going to be as much of a factor as one might think. While the Predators might end up selling for $225 million, it doesn't matter to Eugene Melnyk if he puts the Senators on the market and the highest offer is only $175 million. Just like you may have a baseball card that Beckett says is worth $1,000 ... it's only worth $1,000 if you can find someone else to give you that much for it.

This is true, however the paper value of the teams will be increased in the short term. When it comes to sales negotiations, it does help the current owner build a stronger case for the value of his team.

Would a K-M franchise generate more revenue than Nashville does right now? Probably - but while that would push revenues up, it would also push the cap up at the same time; considering Edmonton has said they need the cap lower to make it easier to generate profits, I doubt they're the only team in that boat - and revenue sharing will only fix so much of that problem. (It would definitely take the Nashville/K-M franchise off the list of teams who get revenue sharing, but the resulting increase in revenues could easily push someone else on that list.)

It would shift the entire makeup of the revenuie sharing landscape. If K-W were to end up as a net-contributor, it would push teams down the list, causing some to pay less in revenue sharing than they did before, and others to collect more than they did before. It may not be a huge gain for anyone, but it would be a gain.

Finally: if you think the rest of the BoG would love to screw Toronto over ... :rolleyes:

You are a better reader than this, IB. I clearly stated that it was "possible", and I clearly stated that it was "some cases." I clearly did not state that it was definite, and I clearly did not state that it was "the rest of the BoG."
 

Jonjmc

Registered User
Feb 7, 2006
1,498
1
Moreover, the other 27 owners are likely to be more concerned about how this sale makes them all richer men, given that Balsillie is driving the price of the NHL's weakest market through the roof. That will have an inflationary effect on everyone else.

The franchises are already worth more. The bid itself did that. Balsille being approved as an owner makes no difference either way in franchise values.

He overbid for the Pens at 175 million, grossly overbid for Nashville at 220-240 million, hell it might be in the owners best interests to deny him and see what he will bid for the next franchise....... before anyone jumps on that last statement it was obviously a joke.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
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.
However there is one fundamental difference between the NFL and the NHL - unlike the NHL, the NFL did not have exclusive territorial rights where a single team could veto a move unless satisfactorily compensated.

The NFL Rule on relocation and territorial rights (Rule 4.3 of Article IV of the NFL Constitution) that was challenged by Davis under anti trust grounds (LA Memorial Coliseum Commision v NFL) did not require a unanimous vote.

After its 1978 amendment, Rule 4.3 states:

The League shall have exclusive control of the exhibition of football games by member clubs within the home territory of each member. No member club shall have the right to transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city, either within or outside its home territory, without prior approval by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the existing member clubs of the League.

Compensation to the Rams was never an issue argued by the Raiders or the league when the Raiders moved to LA, nor was compensation to the 49ers ever an issue when the team returned to Oakland.

Davis never agrued that "there was no such thing as territorial rights" - he argued that the restriction on franchise moves was a violation of anti trust law. Both Rule 4.3 and the court arguments & decision in LA Memorial Coliseum Commission were silent on the issues of expansion. I do not beleive that the rulings in 1984 had any direct impact on the arguments and jury decision in 2001 that threw out Davis' conspiricy claims against the NFL w.r.t. the LA market - other than by creating a pool of angry owners who were more than happy to try to stick it to Al.
 
Last edited:

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
The franchises are already worth more. The bid itself did that. Balsille being approved as an owner makes no difference either way in franchise values.

He overbid for the Pens at 175 million, grossly overbid for Nashville at 220-240 million, hell it might be in the owners best interests to deny him and see what he will bid for the next franchise....... before anyone jumps on that last statement it was obviously a joke.

True enough. However, what does it say to potential investors if they were to see a guy getting jerked around trying to join the club?
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
The risk of someone wanting to put a second team in Miami, Edmonton or Detroit is miniscule. Certantly it is a possibility, but I am confident that it wont be an issue in the minds of the other 27 owners. Why eliminate immediate rewards for fear of an even greater long shot than Rick's Natural Star winning the Breeders Cup?
You mentioned how the players would look out for the best interests of the NHLPA when thinking about this, yet neglect to remember that the '04-05 season was lost as the owners hung together for the benefit of the entire group. Do you really think that after that, they'd go back to looking out for only themselves at the expense of one of the other members?

I don't think so.

This is true, however the paper value of the teams will be increased in the short term. When it comes to sales negotiations, it does help the current owner build a stronger case for the value of his team.
Answered largely above. Also see the baseball card analogy.

It would shift the entire makeup of the revenuie sharing landscape. If K-W were to end up as a net-contributor, it would push teams down the list, causing some to pay less in revenue sharing than they did before, and others to collect more than they did before. It may not be a huge gain for anyone, but it would be a gain.
I'll run numbers later just to illustrate the long-term impacts.

You are a better reader than this, IB. I clearly stated that it was "possible", and I clearly stated that it was "some cases." I clearly did not state that it was definite, and I clearly did not state that it was "the rest of the BoG."
It certainly wasn't a Spungo-like, "Toronto gets 99% of their revenues from their TV/radio contract" but again - 28 owners aren't about to throw the 29th to the wolves. You never know when you'll need support for something you want, and if you've screwed over someone else in the process, ...
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Compensation to the Rams was never an issue argued by the Raiders or the league when the Raiders moved to LA, nor was compensation to the 49ers ever an issue when the team returned to Oakland.

Davis never agrued that "there was no such thing as territorial rights" - he argued that the restriction on franchise moves was a violation of anti trust law. Both Rule 4.3 and the court arguments & decision in LA Memorial Coliseum Commission were silent on the issues of expansion. I do not beleive that the rulings in 1984 had any direct impact on the arguments and jury decision in 2001 that threw out Davis' conspiricy claims against the NFL w.r.t. the LA market - other than by creating a pool of angry owners who were more than happy to try to stick it to Al.
The main reason compensation wasn't an issue in either case was because the NFL had suffered a big loss to Davis, they didn't want to push that issue further and risk another costly loss. Since he didn't have to pay compensation to go from Oakland to L.A., precedent had been set - so why would he have to pay to go from L.A. to Oakland?

With respect to the territorial rights issue: Davis argued that the league's attempt to get him to share the stadium in Hollywood Park forced him out of his market (Los Angeles) and to move to Oakland, and he should be allowed to collect damaged based on the league's malice which forced him out. The jury disagreed, effectively declaring that Davis had no right to claim the Los Angeles market as his own - which would place that control in the hands of the NFL. You are correct that the '82 and '01 rulings were completely separate, and the former had no impact on the latter.
 

WalterSobchak

Blues Trololol
Mar 11, 2004
11,659
26
Where men chunder
www.larddesigns.com
If the League By-Laws require any lawsuit to be filed in the U.S., then any lawsuit must be filed in the U.S. Period.

The NHL is an international company. I am by no means an expert, but considering the law in question is being disputed in Canada in regards to a franchise possibly moving to Canada (and being denied based upon what could breach anti trust laws) it is absurd to think that that particular issue would be argued in the US. If the law is being broken in Canada, the lawsuit is held in Canada.

Exactly why Steve Moore's lawsuit was tossed out of court in Colorado, the incident occured in Canada. If I am correct Moore sued Bertuzzi, the Vancouver Canucks, Crawford and the NHL. I very well could be wron though.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->