Bear with me here as it's been a long week at the office. I'm just trying to understand where you're going with this as it may give some insight into the NHL's mindset (if there is one).
I've heard that something's value is only what the seller is willing to accept as payment for whatever it is they are selling. There are other factors (intangibles!) that could be seen as worthwhile (while not actual cash) if the seller sees value in who they're selling the item to, or perhaps when the sale would complete. The poison pill aspect may begin to factor heavily here if there was one introduced by TNSE (would love to know more about the TNSE negotiations).
If you think something is worth value X but no-one will give you value X, then either you take offer Y or keep the item & continue shopping it around, right? If you do accept offer Y, then you have in fact set the value for that transaction. If the new owner is able to get a higher value in another transaction for that item, then the item has increased in value over the prior transaction.
I agree with what you are saying, but why is the NHL ok with selling the team for 110M plus a 60M reloc fee if they're so concerned with possible undervaluation?
Is there a local market valuation & a relocated market valuation? Or is there a baseline asset valuation + whatever fee to relocate the franchise into a different market?
What does the NHL see as the value now for the soon to be moved Thrashers? 110M or 170M?
Maybe I'm simply just not understanding you, sorry. Again it's been a long week.