Great expo, thx. But Ive got problems with the bolded part.
The sale DID happen for 110. The extra 60 was a relocation fee. But the fee isnt there to protect franchise value coz everyone knows the team sold for 110. The fee is there to punish the buyer for getting a cheap deal, what u call "cried foul that got a discount".
If the NHL said that a team in Atlanta is worth 110 but the same team in Winnipeg is worth 170 - then that sets it up that tons of teams could be more valuable if the owners move them elsewhere. Would the Blues be worth more in Toronto? Totally. Would Ottawa be worth more in NYC? Of course. You follow that business reasoning and lots of owners are gonna see tons more money to be made in Houston or Quebec or wheverever even with a reloc fee. Can the NHL claim they got marketing rights in a city theyve never been in?
Let me back up. The NHL actually placed the 60M relocation fee because they had an agreement with TNSE for a team for Winnipeg (Phoenix relocation) at the price of 170M. They didn't like it that TNSE was able to buy from ASG for only 110, so they assessed the fee to increase the price to 170M, which was the agreed upon price if TNSE bought the Thrashers.
From the NHL's standpoint, what happens if Winnipeg (TNSE) is allowed to purchase the Thrashers and move them to Winnipeg for only 110M? What happens is that the market (Winnipeg) is devalued, and, therefore, every other market is also devalued. So, the relocation fee is a way of keeping the value of markets high.
However, you are correct that, in one sense, this is legalese.... Everyone knows they purchased the team for 110M, and the relo fee was somewhat bogus. There was no market analysis to determine what the difference in market value was. In fast, there is no such analysis for any market. If there were, then an expansion franchise in Vegas, and one in Quebec, for example, would have different fees to enter the league, and we know it didn't work that way.
So, the relo fee is artificial.
But, yes, the NHL does claim rights to any market without a team. That is the legal reasoning behind a relocation fee. However, there is no legal oversight over what the fee is. The NHL seems to be able to set it as whatever they want. This is upheld, in court, by the recent moves in the NFL to Los Angeles and to Las Vegas.
As for owners...well, there are other market protections which prohibit anyone from moving to Toronto, because MLSE already owns the rights there, so another team has to pay a market infringement, and we all assume that would be a HUGE fee. Same applies in NYC.
Now, imagine your concerns about Quebec and Houston.
First of all, Quebec is NOT the cash cow that everyone things it is. It's a government town, so there are restrictions in Canadian law against government employees treating business guests to entertainment. That means there is not as much market for the high end club seats and so on that there is in other places. There is some, but it's no guarantee for sure. Also, QC is NOT a huge population center. It's a good question what would happen to demand for tickets after a few years of no playoffs (see Winnipeg as a comparison).
Now, Houston. Big question there is, "Where are you going to play?" The only place is Toyota Center, and Fertitta owns the rights to manage the place, so you are going to be paying him rent, and your lease terms are going to be decidedly unfavorable. No naming rights, no other income except game nights. etc. Now, I have no doubt you could do better there in terms of income than the Coyotes are doing in Glendale (where they also pay rent), but you might still have losses, and there will be a 200M or more relocation fee attached. So, it might be 10 years or more before you can make up the relocation fee. It's a tough thing to manage, really.
Then, there are the ownership terms which, usually, prohibit relocating franchises until after 7 years of ownership. And, there is the lease which every team has in its current arena. If the host city either paid to build it, or is paying some kind of management fee, they don't want their money to be lost, so the price the team pays is a legal promise to be there for awhile. That's why Florida can't move until 2024 at the earliest.
So, the short answer is: Yes, the NHL has rights to the markets without teams. And....No, it's not quite as lucrative as you might think to relocate, nor it is as possible for legal reasons.
One thing behind a lot of this is that all sports leagues in North America like it when cities put up the cash for arenas and stadiums. Having a lot of relocations lessens the appetite in cities to build, because 'what if they leave soon'. Therefore, the leagues themselves discourage relocations.
