They clearly filed a document which stated that the Pittsburgh sale was provisional on Balsille signing a 7 year non-movement commitment.
My question is where is this same commitment from them in their bid for the Coyotes?
They also clearly filed a document showing that there was a side letter agreement to that seven year clause that detailed what the parties had agreed to for getting out of the seven year clause.
And it couldn't have been that unpalatable because Rodier made reference to those terms when he proposed to Leipold on how they might structure the Preds deal to make it acceptable to the NHL.
That nonsense about the Pens deal claimed by Balsillie has been hammered pretty good by copies of letters and emails between the parties filed into the court.
In fact, Rodier discusses the seven year clause in an email of Sep 11, 2006 - before they had received their first copy of the standard consent agreement from the NHL in October, 2006. In other words, Balsillie's claim to the media that the 7 year clause got dropped in at the last minute was false when they knew full well about the clause being standard in NHL agreements three months before and before they'd even seen a consent agreement from the NHL.
Secondly, after Balsilie bailed on the Pens deal, the emails confirmed this as they tried to salvage the deal.
Thirdly, from the NHL brief "discovery has confirmed that PSE's assertions that the NHL had agreed prior to December 4th to exclude a seven year non relocation provision from the agreement is plainly false. ... " (etc - see page 34):
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_863_0.pdf
Balsillie's public position to the media and his position in this court case on what went down with the Pens got skewered with evidence and testimony where when confronted with the documents, their story had to shift or be retracted.
