I actually think you are right about this. Except that "Someone willing to pay the costs" means either a deep-pocketed owner will to lose BIG$$$$, or a city willing to lose BIG$$$. Since there is no such owner, we are left with the possibility of a city.
What has actually happened here is this, and we have been talking about this for a long time....
1) Ever since bankruptcy, the league has not been opposed to moving the franchise. The league buying the team out of bankruptcy was a case of wanting to control WHO OWNS a team, not where it plays. Thus, NHL fought Balsillie in court.
2) Since losses in Glendale were large and a locally-based buyer not forthcoming, NHL sought means to see if Glendale really wanted the team. These were the 2 25M insurance payment years. Had Glendale refused, the team would have moved, and the NHL would have spun it like this, "The city didn't want us anymore...."
3) Glendale gave them the $$, so the team stayed. 2 years ago, when IA came back to the picture, it was more of the same.... "15M/yr + a 5-yeat out clause, or the team leaves". Again, had Glendale refused, the vans were coming. There was no talk then of going back downtown or playing elsewhere in the Valley.
4) Again, Glendale caved. Had they not, the spin would have been, "The city did not want us anymore...."
So, the pattern is this: The NHL will stay until they get a clear signal from the host city that they can use to blame the city for their departure.
Since Glendale has caused the 2013 AMULA to be amended to the city's favor, and since has moved to replace IA as Arena Manager, it seems clear that NHL is now getting the clear signal they want.
IF Glendale does contract with someone else starting next summer, the team will move, and the spin will be..."The city didn't want us anymore."
It's clear, really, if you look through the mists of the spin and see what actually has happened. The sad part is how few people (reporters included) will actually do that.
