View Single Post
02-12-2013, 10:22 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,582
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by XX View Post
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.
Well the NHL had a big gamble in court, if they had lost the right to determine where their franchises are located. Everyone had their opinions but without precedent no one knew how it was going to go. The NHL would have rather the team sold back in 2009 and not had to deal with this as long as they did.

aqib is offline