View Single Post
03-01-2013, 09:15 AM
Global Moderator
Killion's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,657
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
I personally like this. I think regardless of the ownership being one person or a thousand, if it keeps a team from moving , great. I just have issue with the NHL running its business with a "casual" constitution. Why even waste the paper?
Yes I agree. Only prudent to be flexible when unable to secure a majority owner or perhaps 2, 3 or 4 minority stake holders, to open it up (due dilly required of course). The NHL's constitution and a goodly number of its By-Laws applied with an uneven hand. More a matter of either strict interpretation & adjudication, black & white as any given situation evolves, or a matter of "interpretation" delivered in shades of grey.

The case of MLSE's positioning over Territorial Rights. The Rangers in wanting to control its website & web based activities independently. Group ownership. The approval process in applying for ownership whereby it was reported that Matthew Hulsizer would be rubber stamped for Phoenix, yet falls short of the mark in Missouri? That Winnipegs' arena up until about a year before the leagues hand was forced was too small to accommodate an NHL franchise. Copps erroneously painted as being unsuitable altogether. The list is endless. Little wonder people accuse the league of hypocrisy. Bettman doesnt help matters much either, obfuscates, combative, borderline sometimes if not full-on belligerent when responding to perfectly reasonable questions about such matters.

Killion is offline