I'm on the fence about it. I'm sure we will learn more in the days ahead.
I think it is interesting that Freeman claims that Cogen left because of Cigarran's management of the team. That was an interesting bombshell.
I tend to believe at least part of that. Freeman clearly has his own issues, but I stop short of calling Cigarran the good guy in all of this. He was the one that vetoed a done deal to bring Lecavalier here from Philly a couple of summers ago (a blessing as it were, he saved DP from himself) -- because of his grudge toward PHI. He was the one that shot his mouth off about how the Predators are going to be a cap team going forward...then clarified that he meant, "if you think about it in terms of Weber's real dollars taking the place of his cap hit." Then there was last year's draft, running around with his little gold hat. So if Freeman alleges that Cigarran was overbearing, reading people's emails, etc...and that turned Cogen off? I don't find it hard to believe.
With that said, Herb Fritch seems to the quieter and more collected one, and should probably be allowed to fulfill his desire to be the chairman of the group.
As for Freeman, as I said in the FA thread, he is asking for a ludicrous amount of money. If he wanted it in shares of the team, he would basically be asking for more than the team is worth. He is asking that his shares be returned to their pre-dilution state, saying that Cigarran angled him out of the group by failing to give him the opportunity to fulfill cash calls that he was obligated to. The irony here is that at the time, Freeman was of course having his own financial issues and likely would not have been able to meet the demand...but, that's neither here nor there...if what he says is true, he has a valid complaint.
As to the question about, "does the timing of this have anything to do with the expansion announcement, vis a vis the monies that are to be disbursed directly to the 30 owners and the consequent boost in franchise value?
Of course it does. He did this when he did it to boost the value of what he feels is rightfully his, and how much he could get if things were made right, as he sees it.
So, where do we stand?
GOOD:
1. This is a chancery court filing, and a complicated one. In my opinion, this will, after some posturing, get settled for far less than he's asking, and will basically end with his being paid a sum to walk away and divest himself entirely.
2. The Predators themselves are more a collateral party in the suit. The issue really lies between Cigarran and Freeman, and in the end it would likely be Cigarran who bears fiduciary responsibility.
3. This is very, very unlikely to have any bearing on operational budgeting for the Predators. While the filing seems like bad timing, I suspect that the organization and ownership have long known it was coming and that Freeman wasn't going to just fade silently into the night. They very likely knew this was when he was going to make his play.
BAD
1. Any turmoil is bad, when it comes to ownership. It calls to question just how stable or just how volatile things really are.
2. Freeman is the one that brought Brett Wilson to the table. They co-own a couple of other sporting ventures are friends. Could this have the potential to sour Wilson?
3. Maybe the most alarming thing is how dire our straits were financially, when things were supposedly on solid ground. The filings allude repeatedly to the team teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in 2009. I think, looking back, it all kind of adds up -- naming rights going to a tiny, virtually unknown and eventually revealed to be corrupt local business (the Sommet group). Advertising at all levels being smaller scale, local businesses. These types of things are the lifeblood of an organization like ours, where ticket prices are too low to really impact the balance sheet, even when you're selling out(and at the time, we most definitely weren't). We seem to be doing okay now, and I firmly believe that it's owed 100 percent to Cogen\Henry. I'm a little nervous that a group of business savvy guys were seemingly flying so blindly and so poorly, and it calls into question their decision making ability. A little less faith in ownership, through this.
4. Cigarran in particular through a fit when asked to guarantee the loans from CIT in 2009 to keep the team out of bankruptcy. He was quoted, in email, as saying that he would let the team go bankrupt and effectively dissolve if it came to it. In a sense, Freeman has done more to keep the team here than Cigarran ever has...but only one of them is looking to remain as a factor in the team's future.
So that's where it stands as I see it. It definitely bears watching, and while I"m not alarmed by it *yet,* there are some definite red flags to keep an eye on. I think it's interesting that the team's statement on the matter is "this is a matter for the league and its constitution states that these disputes must be settled at a league level," while Bill Daly told the Tennessean, "This is a matter between two owners, and while we're positive that this has no bearing on the health or stability of the Nashville Predators, it's not our place to get involved." So...which is it?