dkitson16
Registered User
- Jul 23, 2017
- 87
- 68
Since there seems to be differing interpretations - I'll summarize what I've found. I'd be interested in hearing any evidence that the territorial rights are understood differently. I have no problem being wrong, I just want to know the source.
1. The NHL and individual teams (ie Toronto) have differing legal views on the process involved for a new team to invade a market.
a) Toronto holds to the original by-laws which saw a team has a monopoly (veto) on area area extending 50 miles from their home city (or borough) limit. Therefore they can veto a Hamilton team and the NHL can do nothing about this. They like the NYR and LA KIngs before them can be paid off if they deem the amount acceptable.
b) The NHL maintains that the Board of Governors, by a majority vote will decide on this, though the team whose territory who is invaded is entitled to appropriate compensation. This follows by-lay 36 which was instituted after the AL Davis NFL Oakland to LA law suit. This rule has been recognized and upheld at the Competition Board of Canada when Balsillie attempted to move into the Hamilton market
Option a) violates anti-trust laws hence option b came about.
Source for this is Original Hf Board post from 2009
Territory Infringement Rights
2. Assuming 1a) is enforceable - there is no rule against the 50 mile limit overlapping. Lady Stanley did mention this in another post. I would be interested in knowing the source because there have been several instances where this wasn't enforced - if it exists. For example 1967 Philadelphia territorial rights cross over with NYR. Philadelphia paid no compensation for this. Hartford crosses over with several teams. No compensation.
3. TV rights indemnification is different from territorial indemnification. NJ paid Philadelphia (and NYR and NYI) for invading TV market - the first team to ever do so. They also paid NYR a territorial indemnification. It does not appear they paid NYI territory indemnification even though they are within 50 mile limit, though I understand originally the NYI territory was understood to only be on the Long Island side of Manhattan.
4. If 1a) is true AHL teams (and their NHL owners if any) have no ability to block an NHL team from invading their 50 mile territory. There may be TV rights indemnities if an NHL team is close enough, there may be compensation for dislocating the minor league team, but there is no territorial right. If option 1b) is correct then the NHL team can try and persuade the other owners not to invade the AHL affiliate. AHL teams may have lease rights to certain arenas that prevent an NHL team from using said arena for the duration of the lease.
Question on NHL/AHL territorial rights.
1. The NHL and individual teams (ie Toronto) have differing legal views on the process involved for a new team to invade a market.
a) Toronto holds to the original by-laws which saw a team has a monopoly (veto) on area area extending 50 miles from their home city (or borough) limit. Therefore they can veto a Hamilton team and the NHL can do nothing about this. They like the NYR and LA KIngs before them can be paid off if they deem the amount acceptable.
b) The NHL maintains that the Board of Governors, by a majority vote will decide on this, though the team whose territory who is invaded is entitled to appropriate compensation. This follows by-lay 36 which was instituted after the AL Davis NFL Oakland to LA law suit. This rule has been recognized and upheld at the Competition Board of Canada when Balsillie attempted to move into the Hamilton market
Option a) violates anti-trust laws hence option b came about.
Source for this is Original Hf Board post from 2009
Territory Infringement Rights
2. Assuming 1a) is enforceable - there is no rule against the 50 mile limit overlapping. Lady Stanley did mention this in another post. I would be interested in knowing the source because there have been several instances where this wasn't enforced - if it exists. For example 1967 Philadelphia territorial rights cross over with NYR. Philadelphia paid no compensation for this. Hartford crosses over with several teams. No compensation.
3. TV rights indemnification is different from territorial indemnification. NJ paid Philadelphia (and NYR and NYI) for invading TV market - the first team to ever do so. They also paid NYR a territorial indemnification. It does not appear they paid NYI territory indemnification even though they are within 50 mile limit, though I understand originally the NYI territory was understood to only be on the Long Island side of Manhattan.
4. If 1a) is true AHL teams (and their NHL owners if any) have no ability to block an NHL team from invading their 50 mile territory. There may be TV rights indemnities if an NHL team is close enough, there may be compensation for dislocating the minor league team, but there is no territorial right. If option 1b) is correct then the NHL team can try and persuade the other owners not to invade the AHL affiliate. AHL teams may have lease rights to certain arenas that prevent an NHL team from using said arena for the duration of the lease.
Question on NHL/AHL territorial rights.
