View Single Post
Old
02-12-2013, 10:16 PM
  #54
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post

Each party took reasonable steps to act in their best interest, aside from Beasley. But only if you are viewing that as the interest of a steward of Glendale resources. If you're viewing it as what Ed Beasley's personal interests might be, it's probably a different answer.
Because the NHL was a benefactor/enabler/co-conspirator of Beasley's improper conduct, could it be argued that they are partly responsible for the fallout that followed? I'm not familiar with the docs, but is there really something in there authorizing Beasley to do 'whatever it takes' (or anything remotely outlining $20 million+ in subsidies) to keep the team? The line about him not needing council approval is pretty damning, at least to me. That would signal to me, the casual observer, that this backdoor Reinsdorf deal wasn't exactly on the up and up.

I guess if you go back and really look at things, the NHL didn't stand to lose much by letting this go to BK court. It could be argued, given the order of events, that it was actually their intention to do so. Anything to void the AMULA, letting them setup a sweetheart deal (Reinsdorf) or just flat out profit in the end (TNSE/PKP) regardless of what transpired.

I'm not seeing the motivation for the league to find a legitimate local buyer. Not after the AMULA was voided. At that point, their corporate interest is to attain the most money possible for the asset. Or, at the very least, recoup every $ spent. I see no reason for the league to cave on purchase price, beyond middling concerns about optics. It could be argued that the drawn out and often times dramatic process has given them adequate cover to exit the market. Lobbing guys like Hulszier and GJ at the problem really had no downside. Cities move at a pace slow enough to serve the NHL's end goal.

XX is offline