This has got me thinking/speculating that Balsillie may have an aggressive legal strategy going on that may nothing to do with the paid attendance threshold issues. This is a guy that is not shy of litigation.
Last time, it cost him an extra $562 million. If that's a sign of things to come, he may want to quit while he's ahead.
- he has a sales agreement between himself and Leipold where he's overpaying by possibly 100 million of what the franchise is worth in Nashville
- the NHL has to approve a) the sale and b) any relocation according to its constitiution and by-laws
- if they reject his sale, what the basis for that? can Balsillie challenge that if the basis for the rejection is his intention to relocate? what did he learn from his Penguins experience? what rights or potential legal action does Leipold have against the NHL in this matter? does the BOG really want to turn down a 238 million sale price for an NHL franchise?
- if the NHL rejects the relocation, what the basis for that? can Balsillie use anti-trust/anti-competition laws to invalidate such rejection?
1. The fact that he's overpaying by $100 million has no bearing on the validity of the proposal, nor does it mean that the NHL has any additional obligation to approve the move.
2. True! I think I've been saying this for weeks now.
3. Their basis can be "because we don't like you." The NHL is a private entity, they don't have to have a reason. And no ... Balsille is going to find it
very difficult to sue, much less sue and win considering he has no team, and the denial of any offer by the BoG does not harm him or cause him actual damages.
Leipold, on the other hand ... could race to the U.S. District Court and have a lawsuit filed against the NHL within 10 minutes of the vote to deny the sale and allege that he's been damaged.
4. No - see #3.
- most legal disputes are not settled in courts but out of court after all the facts, issues and relevant laws have been discussed between the parties. the mere having a legal case will cause the parties to negotiate the matter.
If the NHL thinks it's in the right, they'll fight any attempted lawsuit to the bitter end. The consequences of just letting this go through because they don't want to get sued are potentially disastrous, as it sets precedent that the league can neither deny any attempted bid for cause nor can it effectively prevent any team from moving at the owner's whim.
As much as some people here think that might be good (letting owners pick up and move to XYZ city), that leads to instability within the league and its partners. "Look, another team moving - where did San Jose go? I thought there was a team in Edmonton, why did they move? Jesus, I have no idea who's where any more - screw this, I'll stick to the NFL or some other sport where teams aren't moving every year." The die-hards are always going to support hockey; it's the casual fans who need to get hooked to help the sport grow ... and if teams are going to move unfettered by the league, casual fans won't show up. They won't even bother trying.
That, ladies and gentlemen, would be a
bad thing.