View Single Post
02-13-2013, 09:44 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't believe that's an accurate description.

I think the battle Rim Jim faced was being turned down by the NHL as an owner. The court ruled it could not force the NHL to accept someone into the club that they didn't approve of as an owner. There was a BOG meeting prior to the hearings where the governors voted on Balsillie, Reinsdorf and maybe IEH. Only Reinsdorf was approved as a potential owner.

Moyes was allowed to put a failing asset into BK, despite the NHL claiming he had not right to do so. The court never actually ruled on this point, but proceeded with a bankruptcy regardless-- so approval without delving into technicalities?

The court also said that Moyes did not have a right to sell a territory that did not belong to him. (Hamiltion) There was still some wiggle room here too however since the court heard witness estimates on the value of the market in Hamilton. A buyer would have to pay for Phoenix + the difference in value if Hamilton was worth more.

They never actually had to get to addressing that point legally since the BOG turned down Balsillie as a potential owner.
Balsilie was turned down as an owner because of his desire to move the team. If you go back and read the judge's opinion the judge said something to the effect that he assumed if Balsillie was planning to keep the team in AZ the league wouldn't have a problem with him. Also it wasn't that Moyes couldn't sell the territory that didn't belong to him it was that you couldn't use bankruptcy to supercede the franchisees rule. It specifically sited moving a McDonalds franchise to NYC as an example of something you couldn't do.

It was spelled out in Baum's ruling which I am too lazy to Google because there are so many different rulings in that case.

aqib is offline