Which only proves once you have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a business that is clearly not going to turn around, he made a business decision. He attempted to sell to Balsillie who it appears is the only outside bidder willing to buy.
That is an interpretation, not proving what I said isn't a fact. That Moyes stopped paying bills and the league had to step in to make up for it is a fact.
At the time Balsillie was yet to be approved. Since he had already been approved previously, there would seem to be good grounds to believe he would be approved again. If putting the team into bankruptcy was an illegal act why did the NHL not get the judge to throw out the case on that grounds? Moyes did what he was legally permitted to do. Moyes view was it was the only way to keep the NHL from selling him down the river.
This is an interpretation, not proving what I said isn't a fact. Balsillie wasn't approved and Moyes conspired (yes, the proper term, since their emails were pretty explicit in making sure the league didn't find out) to sell the team to him without permission from the league. That is a fact.
And that would be a surprise exactly why?
Who said anything about surprises? Is what I said a fact or not? Did Moyes engage in actions that would have a chilling effect on any other bid, yes or no?
What charges are pending against Moyes? If you mean contempt of court that has already been taken on the chin by his legal team.
Oh, it's not stopping there. Glendale will see to that. In any event, you seem to be agreeing that this one is a fact, Moyes has been charged with contempt of court.
According to Forbes Magazine in 2006-07 Phoenix gained in value. These teams lost in value that year - Philadelphia, Colorado and St. Louis.
In 2005-06 Forbes noted Dallas Philadelphia, Colorado, San Jose, NYI all ost value. Phoenix gained value.
In 2004 Forbes noted Dallas, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis Columbus, New Jersey, Washington, Anaheim, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Carolina all dropped in value. Phoenix gained in value.
I guess it depends whose figures you believe? Again a rhetorical question.
I'm using the same figures as you. I notice you didn't use 2008. Why's that? Because every team gained value except Phoenix?
Once you hit the years around the lockout there are other factors in play. However, in 2008 Forbes noted Phoenix was the only team that did not gain in value. A fact.
So again, I ask you, what facts did I get wrong?
As for Ross, he may have the education but he is letting a severe bias interfere with his opinion. He is clearly antagonistic towards the league's ownership. If his opinion is to be taken as fact, why did the CCB disagree with him?
I'm afraid Ross sounds more like a "witness for the defense" than an objective viewer, and I don't think anyone with an objective view of the situation could see his comments any other way. For example, has he ever been an "expert" witness or other participant where he wasn't on the "antitrust" side? Is he, in fact, inclined to judge anything that even has a hint of being relevant to anti-trust in favor of the offending (in his view) business?
Given Ross has been fanatically pro-Balsillie in this affair makes the question, as you are fond of saying, rhetorical.
