Here's a monkeywrench no one has thrown into the picture yet. What about the buildings?
I can only speak for my own team, of course, but our deal is that the Lightning is the main tenant of the building and, as such, he who owns the Lightning owns the leasehold rights to the arena. If that's a common scenario around the league, I think:
1) The owners who are in this situation probably wouldn't want to give up their buildings if they are successful entertainment venues in their own right. In most cases I think it's a fairly common assumption that the building makes the money, not the team that's playing in it. The share of the price for our team would have to be enough to cover PS&E's original purchase price, recoup the $$ lost over the years and offset to some degree the $$ our owner would lose by giving up the building.
2) If the deal went through anyway, those fans who are rabidly chomping at the bit for contraction may get their wish -- but they may be very disappointed in which teams go. My team is a favorite target of many pro-contraction folks (hey, it's only snowed twice here in my lifetime), but it very likely would be very safe under this ownership plan, because the consortium buying the league would also then have leasehold rights to the building, which is a very successful venue. So, the teams that are most likely to go would be (a) those whose building rights don't transfer with ownership of the team; (b) those whose buildings can't bring in the $$ on their own.
I'm sure there are lots of holes in this argument, just another interesting point no one seems to have thought of yet.