All of those points are well made as usual, although I would add the following:
1. In some respects, it is useful to point out the credibility of the messengers, as many people on this board, including many newer folks, may not be familiar with those guys and may take their pronouncements as the gospel. That is done with a disturbing degree of regularity.
Why thank you, GC!
I personally enjoy the anti-__________ (insert topic) opinions. Keeps us all on our toes. It's a good exercise to entertain these just to see if one has covered their ground well.
2. It should be pointed out that your reference to "11th hour conditions" was definitively denied, with details, by Bill Daly.
Please explain where he has done this. I understood that these "11th hour" requirements now would face any prospective owner, however what I read earlier was that these were imposed at the last minute, where Balsillie was close to closing the deal? I am completely open the possibility that my info may not be current or complete on this topic.
What caught my eye was the detail claiming regardless of what happened with the new arena plans in Pittsburgh (Plan A and B falling through), that Balsillie could not move the team. I'll grant that he appeared interested in the team in order to move them (apparently as did at least one other bidder?), and that is what drove the Penns price up as well. Again it does appear that each side tried a power play-- lock down the money, then discuss moving issues OR give me the right to move them and then I give you the money.....
3. The NHL is not asking Balsillie to be a "silent partner" with "100% of the capital". It is insisting on him being a 1/30th partner putting up 1/30th of the capital (more or less). Balsillie is effectively saying that this is not a JV, but rather insisting that he can do his own thing. It comes down to how one envisions the NHL.
While I understand what you mean when you say 1/30th of the NHL, it really is a lot more or a whole lot less depending on which team is owned. The Leafs, Rangers, or Habs are worth a lot more than 1/30th of the total value of all franchises if one sums them up. (As a sidebar, I wonder if the idea has ever been floated that the NHL votes should somehow reflect the actual worth of each group?)
Consider Bain and how they divided up their $3+ billion offer. It was not an equitable distribution over 30 teams. Yet, belonging to the NHL club is a prerequisite for maintaining the values as NHL franchises, and to that extent the collective interest must be balanced against the individual interests too.
4. Leipold really has very little leverage, so long as (if) the NHL rejects the ownership application while following its procedures.
That is the kicker. Leipold can sell his team if he wants to, and there is nothing that says a team cannot ever be moved. However there are procedures in place that do require the league and any individual owner to follow their bylaws (the validity of some of these of course may be open to legality issues, but that's outside my area of even layman's knowledge). With millions at stake, it behooves all parties to do so and not open up the matter to outside intervention (in the legal sense, a la Davis). Whatever the litmus test is that the NHL uses, it has to be consistent and used under all scenarios.
). The NHL is actually closer in structure to a hybrid of a JV and a consortium, albeit one in which profits are not shared. It acts like a JV but shares profits like a consortium.
