Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum

[TaketheCannoli]

The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.

I think you are reading that wrong - the veto doesn't have to occur - and they are referring to the laws in effect when the "event" occurs. The event would be if a single team were entitled to prevent a franchise from entering its local region - hence the "concern".

Right, the laws in effect at the time such an EVENT occurs. It is saying an event must occur.

The event would be if a single team were entitled to prevent a franchise from entering its local region - hence the "concern".

A very good description of a veto and it says the event must occur.

 

[bbud]

This is all water "under the bridge," but what is your opinion of his postion once Moyes went to the NHL in November and said, "I'm done. I'm not putting another dime in to this team." and the NHL then began to finance the team?

It seems to me, if one walks away from an asset and corresponding liability, they cede control. If I walk away from a home and its mortgage, it's over I lose the house and likely lose any equity, once the State disposes of it at a distressed price.

I think the League's tactical error here was doing it quietly. The League could have said, " Hey, you can either keep the team afloat while you try to sell it, hand it over to the NHL in its entirety, or file bankruptcy."

Do you beleive though that GB and the NHL knew nothing of how staggering losses were hitting the Coyotes and where Moyes was , JR was allready involved so they knew and understood and then aided a bid that would give him nothing back basically and as ive said we can argue #s but if he out and out lost 90 million and wanted that back the NHL + JR deal was a stab in the back and ultimately played a big role in what happened .

 

[Jaym3000]

Right, the laws in effect at the time such an EVENT occurs. It is saying an event must occur. A very good description of a veto and it says the event must occur.

Did you miss the word "entitled"? It didn't say "used" it says "entitled"

 

[Fugu]

This is all water "under the bridge," but what is your opinion of his postion once Moyes went to the NHL in November and said, "I'm done. I'm not putting another dime in to this team." and the NHL then began to finance the team?

It seems to me, if one walks away from an asset and corresponding liability, they cede control. If I walk away from a home and its mortgage, it's over I lose the house and likely lose any equity, once the State disposes of it at a distressed price.

I think the League's tactical error here was doing it quietly. The League could have said, " Hey, you can either keep the team afloat while you try to sell it, hand it over to the NHL in its entirety, or file bankruptcy."

Perhaps Moyes didn't realize just how low an offer would be? I really don't know, leek, but his actions are not of a man who was content with his relationship with the league. He was "one of them" so we're not talking about some outsider who didn't know the league and governors. He was a governor. Perhaps he thought he might get something back out of an asset that was only breathing due to his money for all the years between Elman bringing Moyes in and until the NHL stepped in. When he saw that any money would go to SOF and then the NHL, and that was pretty much all the money there was, he went for the longshot. Hard to say, but I cannot believe he's "happy" over the situation.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Do you beleive though that GB and the NHL knew nothing of how staggering losses were hitting the Coyotes and where Moyes was , JR was allready involved so they knew and understood and then aided a bid that would give him nothing back basically and as ive said we can argue #s but if he out and out lost 90 million and wanted that back the NHL + JR deal was a stab in the back and ultimately played a big role in what happened .

I'm pretty sure Balsillie wasn't involved in November of 2008. The League made a decision to finance the team when Moyes threw up his hands and quit. That's fine. They also decided that it would be better to do it quietly and to let Moyes stay involved. They said it was so he could avoid embarrassment. I think the NHL also wanted to avoid embarrassment.

They could just as easily have told Moyes, " Jerry you have two choices, continue to fund the team or walk away and we will take possession." If Moyes did neither, bills would not have been paid, so the creditors could have then petitioned the Court to place them in bankruptcy. In any case, Moyes would have either funded the team or lost all of his equity. As I posted above, what would happen if you simply stopped paying your home mortgage and walked away?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Perhaps Moyes didn't realize just how low an offer would be? I really don't know, leek, but his actions are not of a man who was content with his relationship with the league. He was "one of them" so we're not talking about some outsider who didn't know the league and governors. He was a governor. Perhaps he thought he might get something back out of an asset that was only breathing due to his money for all the years between Elman bringing Moyes in and until the NHL stepped in. When he saw that any money would go to SOF and then the NHL, and that was pretty much all the money there was, he went for the longshot. Hard to say, but I cannot believe he's "happy" over the situation.

I agree with you, he's unhappy. This episode will become a case study in business schools for its comedy of errors. Moyes loaned money to Ellman using an instrument that he thought would protect his interests. Unfortunately, the instrument converted to equity and created a situation where he owned majority interest in a hockey team. Then, he continued to use the same financial instrument to provide funding, which created another issue, money he may have intended to loan the entity was converting to equity. The guy built a trucking business, but clearly didn't want to own a hockey team. and the P&Ls say for whatever reason, he wasn't good at it.

His choice of instrument was a huge error. Perhaps he should have loaned Ellman money using a more conventional instrument that was secured. He would then be in the same boat as SOF and the NHL.

For the NHL's part, they made huge errors as well. Did they realize Moyes was an accidental and failing majority owner? Once Moyes came to them in November and said he was done, for whatever reason, they chose to leave Moyes in place and not truly take possession of the team.

 

[Fugu]

This position is expressed quite a bit here. Let me paraphrase: A team in Hamilton would make much more money than one in Phoenix. Therefore the NHL is completely crazy to oppose Balsillie, who is one of the greatest businessmen alive today.

1. Of course no one at all disputes that there is more money to be made in Hamilton than Phoenix. But there could be many reasons why a move to Hamilton is not good for the league. I'll state the simplest. The right to put a team in Hamilton is an asset the league owns and which they have said is worth $279 million to them. Why would anyone expect them to give this away to Balsillie for the roughly $12 million he has said it is worth?

Because the veto is real.

The NHL doesn't own the GTA territory, the Leafs do, because they've already paid the NHL for that right. Thus I take issue over the value of a second team to the NHL, because I don't believe 'they' have a right per their constitution to sell a territory twice.

I've put this idea forward before, but the squabble may be over who gets the lion's share of the money for further exploitation of what is currently MLSE's territory. Anything based on giving MLSE a 'damages' amount could well be flawed if there are essentially no damages. Thus, how do you divide up the money? Before Davis v NFL, franchises could openly say they had some exclusive claim to a market, and could veto any attempts to place another team there-- through relocation or expansion.

For example, the NHL is claiming that Moyes only has the right to sell his franchise in its current location. In this sense, the league could issue a second franchise in Phoenix, to say JR, and he could come up with a deal for an arena. What's stopping them from doing this?

Do they really have the right to sell some of MLSE's territory away without MLSE's approval? I think this is where the league is saying they disagree with MLSE's interpretation of their rights. Let's say a simple majority of governors voted to sell a second franchise in the GTA, and someone stepped up to buy, price tag of $400 MM. I don't see why it matters if its relocation or expansion, the territory has already been sold and the buyer believes that what they paid for was an exclusive right unless they themselves agree to share it. That's why the constitution isn't going to change. I cannot think of a single team that would want to change that from the way it currently reads.

The next question then is, assuming MLSE would get to keep 50% or more of any such fee, is how do the other teams benefit by such a move? They'd probably prefer going somewhere where they share in the money equally, since NHL teams aren't something that are added on each year in large numbers. This may be the only chance to make money off of location. It is in the interest of the 30 teams to share a new pie equally as opposed to letting one team benefit (whatever that price might be).

 

[CGG]

Funny you lambaste the NHL for trying to screw over one creditor... since Moyes put the team into bankruptcy so HE can screw over a creditor (Glendale).

You might have a point there if the NHL offer didn't screw over Glendale even more. The fact that no local owners are still in the picture is a pretty good sign that hockey won't work in Glendale unless you have someone willing to lose (hundreds of) millions of dollars. Find someone, anyone, willing to takeover the Glendale lease and I might start to feel sorry for them. Too bad a lease is only good if the lessee doesn't go bankrupt trying to live up to its terms.

 

[Fugu]

I agree with you, he's unhappy. This episode will become a case study in business schools for its comedy of errors. Moyes loaned money to Ellman using an instrument that he thought would protect his interests. Unfortunately, the instrument converted to equity and created a situation where he owned majority interest in a hockey team. Then, he continued to use the same financial instrument to provide funding, which created another issue, money he may have intended to loan the entity was converting to equity. The guy built a trucking business, but clearly didn't want to own a hockey team. and the P&Ls say for whatever reason, he wasn't good at it.

His choice of instrument was a huge error. Perhaps he should have loaned Ellman money using a more conventional instrument that was secured. He would then be in the same boat as SOF and the NHL.

For the NHL's part, they made huge errors as well. Did they realize Moyes was an accidental and failing majority owner? Once Moyes came to them in November and said he was done, for whatever reason, they chose to leave Moyes in place and not truly take possession of the team.

I believe they hesitated because of the staggering amount of money it would take to run it. They couldn't be free and clear of two huge players, SOF and their secured debt, and CoG and their "potentially" even greater damages figure. To run the team takes a minimum amount of money, but on top of that was the debt maintenance. To take possession of the team fully would mean they would have to assume the debt and lease.

Realistically, how DO they get their money back then? Currently, assuming Moyes gets nothing, the NHL could pay off the existing debt and recoup the money they've put in the team to-date. However, with each subsequent season, they whittle away at the difference between operating the team and a potential sale price. (It's a number that quickly trends toward negative equity.)

They also have no means for getting out the Glendale lease either. Someone has to get soaked.

 

[RR]

The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.

I think you are reading that wrong - the veto doesn't have to occur - and they are referring to the laws in effect when the "event" occurs. The event would be if a single team were entitled to prevent a franchise from entering its local region - hence the "concern".

No, read it again: "may have concerns," yes, but those "concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred. The "event" IS the veto!

Why so much confusion? If, based on the facts the CCB is "concerned" a veto has occurred, it has the absolute right to investigate and evaluate the use of an alleged veto under current applicable law, which most agree, is very possibly an anti-trust violation.

 

[KevFu]

You might have a point there if the NHL offer didn't screw over Glendale even more. The fact that no local owners are still in the picture is a pretty good sign that hockey won't work in Glendale unless you have someone willing to lose (hundreds of) millions of dollars. Find someone, anyone, willing to takeover the Glendale lease and I might start to feel sorry for them. Too bad a lease is only good if the lessee doesn't go bankrupt trying to live up to its terms.

Yet, the NHL is still willing to seek local ownership and Moyes wasn't. Glendale backed which bid again?

 

[Fugu]

Yet, the NHL is still willing to seek local ownership and Moyes wasn't. Glendale backed which bid again?

Sure, they were willing to seek local ownership, but no one wants to be stuck with what that asset really has associated with it. (Per my post above.)

The NHL however wasn't willing to buy Moyes out until they were forced to do so through this process. No one wanted to buy the team from Moyes either. No one wants the existing lease, as all suitors have asked for new conditions.

 

[KevFu]

Best solution:

1. Liquidate the Phoenix Coyotes; give the franchise history back to the City of Winnipeg.
2. Place an expansion team in Kansas City immediately for 30 teams, since they have an arena ready to go.
3. Give JB an expansion team in Hamilton for 2012 or 2013 (allowing time for the whole MLSE/territory rights fees to be sorted out)
4. Add an expansion team, preferably in Winnipeg at the same time as Hamilton.

Canada has 8 teams.
Kansas City gets a team.
AEG gets a team in one of their arenas.
The Jets make their triumphant return
MLSE and Buffalo are compensated fairly.

NE: OTT, MON, BOS, TOR, BUF, HAM
ATL: unchanged
SE: unchanged
CENT: DET, CHI, STL, KC, NASH, CBJ
NW: VAN, EDM, CAL, MIN, WIN
PAC: SJ, ANA, LA, COL, DAL

Who's unhappy besides MLSE?

 

[KevFu]

Sure, they were willing to seek local ownership, but no one wants to be stuck with what that asset really has associated with it. (Per my post above.)

The NHL however wasn't willing to buy Moyes out until they were forced to do so through this process. No one wanted to buy the team from Moyes either. No one wants the existing lease, as all suitors have asked for new conditions.

This is all the more reason why the "front door" was open for JB with Phoenix, where as it wasn't for PIT and NASH.

 

[Jaym3000]

No, read it again: "may have concerns," yes, but those "concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred. The "event" IS the veto!

Why so much confusion? If, based on the facts the CCB is "concerned" a veto has occurred, it has the absolute right to investigate and evaluate the use of an alleged veto under current applicable law, which most agree, is very possibly an anti-trust violation.

The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.

For fear of not meeting your approval of intelligence, let me explain delicately: The first part of the sentence says that they may have concerns IF a single team were ENTITLED to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada.... SO, the concern comes from the ENTITLEMENT and not the EXERCISING of the veto. Ok, second part of the sentence - which explains the evaluation of such concerns (from the ENTITLEMENT and NOT the EXERCISING) would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and the law applicable at the time SUCH EVENT OCCURED. The reference to "such" an event indicates it was raised earlier in the sentence - the ENTITLEMENT to exercise was raiseds earlier in the sentence and NOT the EXERCISING of the veto.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

The NHL doesn't own the GTA territory, the Leafs do, because they've already paid the NHL for that right. Thus I take issue over the value of a second team to the NHL, because I don't believe 'they' have a right per their constitution to sell a territory twice.

I've put this idea forward before, but the squabble may be over who gets the lion's share of the money for further exploitation of what is currently MLSE's territory. Anything based on giving MLSE a 'damages' amount could well be flawed if there are essentially no damages. Thus, how do you divide up the money? Before Davis v NFL, franchises could openly say they had some exclusive claim to a market, and could veto any attempts to place another team there-- through relocation or expansion.

For example, the NHL is claiming that Moyes only has the right to sell his franchise in its current location. In this sense, the league could issue a second franchise in Phoenix, to say JR, and he could come up with a deal for an arena. What's stopping them from doing this?

Do they really have the right to sell some of MLSE's territory away without MLSE's approval? I think this is where the league is saying they disagree with MLSE's interpretation of their rights. Let's say a simple majority of governors voted to sell a second franchise in the GTA, and someone stepped up to buy, price tag of $400 MM. I don't see why it matters if its relocation or expansion, the territory has already been sold and the buyer believes that what they paid for was an exclusive right unless they themselves agree to share it. That's why the constitution isn't going to change. I cannot think of a single team that would want to change that from the way it currently reads.

The next question then is, assuming MLSE would get to keep 50% or more of any such fee, is how do the other teams benefit by such a move? They'd probably prefer going somewhere where they share in the money equally, since NHL teams aren't something that are added on each year in large numbers. This may be the only chance to make money off of location. It is in the interest of the 30 teams to share a new pie equally as opposed to letting one team benefit (whatever that price might be).

In studying the Constitution coupled with the By-Laws, I believe you have a good point. The Leafs own the territory within 50 miles of the Toronto city limits. This doesn't mean a veto, but ownership of the territory, so you may be correct, MLSE may have the rights to any expansion fee received for Hamilton (minus costs).

I believe they hesitated because of the staggering amount of money it would take to run it. They couldn't be free and clear of two huge players, SOF and their secured debt, and CoG and their "potentially" even greater damages figure. To run the team takes a minimum amount of money, but on top of that was the debt maintenance. To take possession of the team fully would mean they would have to assume the debt and lease.

Realistically, how DO they get their money back then? Currently, assuming Moyes gets nothing, the NHL could pay off the existing debt and recoup the money they've put in the team to-date. However, with each subsequent season, they whittle away at the difference between operating the team and a potential sale price. (It's a number that quickly trends toward negative equity.)

They also have no means for getting out the Glendale lease either. Someone has to get soaked.

Aye there are some of the rubs. I think it's reasonable to believe the Phoenix team is worth $140-$150 million in Phoenix, simply because those are the prices on the term sheets submitted by Reinsdorf and Ice Edge. Anything beyond that number is likely territorial payment per Raiders II and not due Moyes. He put cash in, whether loans or equity may be somewhat irrelevant. When this all started,the NHL asserted that Moyes was selling something he doesn't own, a franchise in So. Ontario. Assuming the NHL says $190 million, the upper end of their estimate, then I have to think it's $190 + $150 = $340 million.

As far as getting their money back, I have to guess they were planning to flip the team quickly at the time they made they bid. I assume PSE knows this as well, and that is at the heart of their attempts to stall the deal. I don't support PSE, but I do recognize that they are tough competitors. If this sale continues to drag on and I think everyone would acknowledge there is a chance it will, it presents a problem, both for the NHL and PSE. The damage to the franchise no matter who ends up with it will be pretty bad.

No, read it again: "may have concerns," yes, but those "concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred. The "event" IS the veto!

Why so much confusion? If, based on the facts the CCB is "concerned" a veto has occurred, it has the absolute right to investigate and evaluate the use of an alleged veto under current applicable law, which most agree, is very possibly an anti-trust violation.

The confusion lies in how people on either side of this discussion want to interpret the CCB ruling. I believe at this point there is no matter in front of the tribunal so...no event must have occurred.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Uhh...no. It applies only to expansion franchises. It makes no reference to relocation at all and there is no way that you could pass off a relocated franchise as a new franchise.

The language is plain on its face as noted in the court documents that I linked.

 

[guyincognito]

so, is Baum ever going to rule on this case, or is he going to "go to his car to get something", peel out, and head for the Mexican border?

 

[Jaym3000]

In studying the Constitution coupled with the By-Laws, I believe you have a good point. The Leafs own the territory within 50 miles of the Toronto city limits. This doesn't mean a veto, but ownership of the territory, so you may be correct, MLSE may have the rights to any expansion fee received for Hamilton (minus costs).



Aye there are some of the rubs. I think it's reasonable to believe the Phoenix team is worth $140-$150 million in Phoenix, simply because those are the prices on the term sheets submitted by Reinsdorf and Ice Edge. Anything beyond that number is likely territorial payment per Raiders II and not due Moyes. He put cash in, whether loans or equity may be somewhat irrelevant. When this all started,the NHL asserted that Moyes was selling something he doesn't own, a franchise in So. Ontario. Assuming the NHL says $190 million, the upper end of their estimate, then I have to think it's $190 + $150 = $340 million.

As far as getting their money back, I have to guess they were planning to flip the team quickly at the time they made they bid. I assume PSE knows this as well, and that is at the heart of their attempts to stall the deal. I don't support PSE, but I do recognize that they are tough competitors. If this sale continues to drag on and I think everyone would acknowledge there is a chance it will, it presents a problem, both for the NHL and PSE. The damage to the franchise no matter who ends up with it will be pretty bad.



The confusion lies in how people on either side of this discussion want to interpret the CCB ruling. I believe at this point there is no matter in front of the tribunal so...no event must have occurred.

They have been quoted as saying they are monitoring the events in Phoenix very closely and should JB lose, they will be investigating the matter. Further, several posters on makeitseven have filed complaints to the CCB and they are all starting to get calls from the CCB stating exactly the above. If JB wins they will not investigate. If he loses, they will investigate. If he loses at appeal they will investigate once the appeal is over. That is what they are stating in their personal calls to individuals filing complaints.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Best solution:

1. Liquidate the Phoenix Coyotes; give the franchise history back to the City of Winnipeg.
2. Place an expansion team in Kansas City immediately for 30 teams, since they have an arena ready to go.
3. Give JB an expansion team in Hamilton for 2012 or 2013 (allowing time for the whole MLSE/territory rights fees to be sorted out)
4. Add an expansion team, preferably in Winnipeg at the same time as Hamilton.

Canada has 8 teams.
Kansas City gets a team.
AEG gets a team in one of their arenas.
The Jets make their triumphant return
MLSE and Buffalo are compensated fairly.

NE: OTT, MON, BOS, TOR, BUF, HAM
ATL: unchanged
SE: unchanged
CENT: DET, CHI, STL, KC, NASH, CBJ
NW: VAN, EDM, CAL, MIN, WIN
PAC: SJ, ANA, LA, COL, DAL

Who's unhappy besides MLSE?

Who is unhappy? A lot of people:

Fugu the contractionist for one I believe.

Then there is this guy who constantly posts the League should not have expanded to 30 teams before the 28 existing franchises were anchored in their markets. Perhaps you've seen a few of his posts? Some SEC fan from New Orleans I think.

The BoG would be unhappy if Balsillie and more pointedly Rodier was rewarded for their tactics.

Unless the expansion round included moving the Red Wings and Blue Jackets to the Eastern Conference, then Mike Illitch and Mac McConnell who have commitments from the NHL that those two teams move to the East before any teams are added there.

Should I continue?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The language is plain on its face as noted in the court documents that I linked.

The CCB has already looked at all the articles of the constitution and does not agree with your analysis.

They have been quoted as saying they are monitoring the events in Phoenix very closely and should JB lose, they will be investigating the matter. Further, several posters on makeitseven have filed complaints to the CCB and they are all starting to get calls from the CCB stating exactly the above. If JB wins they will not investigate. If he loses, they will investigate. If he loses at appeal they will investigate once the appeal is over. That is what they are stating in their personal calls to individuals filing complaints.

They are obligated to investigate when someone complains whether or not something happened.

Investigate doesn't mean they will find anything.

And, btw, you are completely wrong, and RR and Leek are right; the statement refers to an act of antitrust, not just the potential for it.

Taylor would not go so far as to say the Competition Bureau would definitely investigate the Coyotes case.

"We have to be presented with an anti-competitive act, not the possibility of an anti-competitive act," he said.

"We can't go off pre-emptively and stop something that hasn't happened yet just because it may happen, just because the Leafs say they have a veto, and just because many people believe they will exercise it. We have said and continue to say that if a veto is exercised that effectively blocks a team coming into another team's territory, we will look at it and that includes using all our powers to investigate it and determine whether it violates our act."

That's the deputy commissioner of the CCB and it doesn't get any clearer than that. Act required, end of story.

so, is Baum ever going to rule on this case, or is he going to "go to his car to get something", peel out, and head for the Mexican border?

He might already be there.

 

[Jaym3000]

The CCB has already looked at all the articles of the constitution and does not agree with your analysis.

Well it looks like they will be looking at it again then.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Well it looks like they will be looking at it again then.

As they are required to.

Investigating doesn't equal finding. Balsillie sent the CCB after the league before. The league was cleared.

Bill Daly at Washington Capitals fan forum- if Balsillie finds front door BOG might vote again

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6076291?fr=yvmtf

kudo to Puck Daddy

More support for those of us who have been saying this isn't about a comparison between the markets, but rather the methodology used.

Balsillie's problem is he tied his goat to Rodier. Rodier is the real rot in the process, and like moldy cheese he should be cut out and thrown in the garbage.

I'm pretty sure Balsillie wasn't involved in November of 2008. The League made a decision to finance the team when Moyes threw up his hands and quit. That's fine. They also decided that it would be better to do it quietly and to let Moyes stay involved. They said it was so he could avoid embarrassment. I think the NHL also wanted to avoid embarrassment.

The NHL underestimated Moyes' greed. Moyes knew he stood to make a LOT of money by selling to Balsillie under the original terms of the deal - back when the two of them conspired to make the deal move so fast no one would be able to mobilize against it in time. He decided it was worth betraying the league and forfeiting his 30m guarantee that he wouldn't declare bankruptcy. They misjudged that, misjudged the NHL's legal strength, misjudged how well they would be able to slow the process down.

Thanks to that, the original deal died. Now Moyes is just desperately trying to salvage anything he can. He's already lost this fight, and is staring at further lawsuits in the near future.

Betraying the league in the name of greed may cost him the shirt off his back.

And the league is certainly going to be asking for a lot MORE money in guarantees from potential owners in the future.

 

[KevFu]

Who is unhappy? A lot of people:

Fugu the contractionist for one I believe.

Then there is this guy who constantly posts the League should not have expanded to 30 teams before the 28 existing franchises were anchored in their markets. Perhaps you've seen a few of his posts? Some SEC fan from New Orleans I think.

The BoG would be unhappy if Balsillie and more pointedly Rodier was rewarded for their tactics.

Unless the expansion round included moving the Red Wings and Blue Jackets to the Eastern Conference, then Mike Illitch and Mac McConnell who have commitments from the NHL that those two teams move to the East before any teams are added there.

Should I continue?

I'm a contractionist as well, obviously. But we all know that's not happening.

Really? There's another guy on here from New Orleans? We might be friends if he wasn't an SEC fan Other than that, I'm glad you're listening!

I don't want to see JB get rewarded for these tactics, but I also would like to see Hamilton end up with a team. Compromise is better than losing.

We could re-align along non-geographic lines, which I've also advocated.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I don't want to see JB get rewarded for these tactics, but I also would like to see Hamilton end up with a team. Compromise is better than losing.

Daly's message today to Balsillie to stop listening to that dipstick Rodier and start looking for the front door seems to be an indication that, should he show some humility and patience, and maybe some contriteness, he may have a future yet.