[Rumour] Houston Rockets owner has had preliminary talks about buying the Coyotes

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Actually the NHL can stop the sale and relocation of a franchise but they cannot stop an owner from relocating the team himself. If Murray Edwards or Eugene Melnyk wanted to up and relocate their franchise there is nothing Bettman or the NHL can legally do to stop them.

I know that this view arises from US trade law cases but there is this to deal with:

From the NHL Constitution
4.2 Territorial Rights of League The League shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games by Member Clubs in the home territory of each member, subject to the rights hereinafter granted to members. The members shall have the right to and agree to operate professional hockey clubs and play the League schedule in their respective cities or boroughs as indicated opposite their signatures hereto. No member shall transfer its club and franchise to a different city or borough. No additional cities or boroughs shall be added to the League circuit without the consent of three-fourths of all the members of the League. Any admission of new members with franchises to operate in any additional cities or boroughs shall be subject to the provisions of Section 4.3.

As a lawyer I'd be pretty uncomfortable applying general cases from (a) non sports franchise models and (b) with different constitutions.

[White Out 403]

well now i dont know what to think

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I know that this view arises from US trade law cases but there is this to deal with:

From the NHL Constitution
4.2 Territorial Rights of League The League shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games by Member Clubs in the home territory of each member, subject to the rights hereinafter granted to members. The members shall have the right to and agree to operate professional hockey clubs and play the League schedule in their respective cities or boroughs as indicated opposite their signatures hereto. No member shall transfer its club and franchise to a different city or borough. No additional cities or boroughs shall be added to the League circuit without the consent of three-fourths of all the members of the League. Any admission of new members with franchises to operate in any additional cities or boroughs shall be subject to the provisions of Section 4.3.

As a lawyer I'd be pretty uncomfortable applying general cases from (a) non sports franchise models and (b) with different constitutions.

That is the selling of the franchise. So Melnyk lets say cannot sell the Senators to Quebecor without the NHL and the board approving the sale. Ala the Hamilton fiasco where JB wanted to but the team and relocate them. If Melnyk chose to retain ownership of the Sens and relocate them to QC the NHL cannot stop him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is the selling of the franchise. So Melnyk lets say cannot sell the Senators to Quebecor without the NHL and the board approving the sale. Ala the Hamilton fiasco where JB wanted to but the team and relocate them. If Melnyk chose to retain ownership of the Sens and relocate them to QC the NHL cannot stop him.

You are reaching now. Transferring to a different city is not selling the franchise - that's covered elsewhere be reference to "new members". Nor is playing hockey outside of the cities or boroughs specified in their agreement.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are reaching now. Transferring to a different city is not selling the franchise - that's covered elsewhere be reference to "new members". Nor is playing hockey outside of the cities or boroughs specified in their agreement.

I am not reaching, go through any of the threads on any site about it. There is nothing saying legally an owner cannot relocate and there is case law supporting it. You are wrong, stop arguing it.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not reaching, go through any of the threads on any site about it. There is nothing saying legally an owner cannot relocate and there is case law supporting it. You are wrong, stop arguing it.

Yeah I'm not sure that's the case. The language he posted seems pretty clear it's discussing relocation, unless the word transfer means "sale" to a new owner. The only way to tell is to read the rest of the constitution though.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not reaching, go through any of the threads on any site about it. There is nothing saying legally an owner cannot relocate and there is case law supporting it. You are wrong, stop arguing it.

There is zero case law supporting the view that an NHL owner cannot relocate. Show me the case. I guarantee you there are none interpreting the NHL constitution. What there is is a case saying that other restrictions in the same document are not anti-competition, because the league has a right to reasonably control the territories it operates in (the Coyotes case).

I don't need to go through the threads and look at lay opinions on this. Interpreting contracts is what I do.

"You are wrong, stop arguing about it" - not really persuasive. Sorry.

[White Out 403]

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...-nhl-franchise

the edmonton journal seems to agree with GioforPM

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not reaching, go through any of the threads on any site about it. There is nothing saying legally an owner cannot relocate and there is case law supporting it. You are wrong, stop arguing it.

Actually, you’re wrong:

”I think it was exaggerated in terms of the significance of the comments,” said Daly. ” I’d also say it’s very important to understand that everything that’s done in the NHL, vis-a-vis franchises and potential relocations are done through the board of governor and 30 other franchises.

“No individual owner has the ability to say he’s leaving a market and going to a new market. That is ultimately a decision for the board of governors.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ottawas...-in-ottawa/amp

[Shazam]

Houston Ice Frackers.

[GioforPM]

The view that relocation rules don't bar relocation comes from a US NFL case in which (a) the league wanted the relocation and (b) cities were trying to block the move by (c) relying on a bunch of guidelines in the NFL relocation bylaws. The NFL gave evidence in support of the owners who wanted to move. The NFL owners had voted to allow the move.

I think that's way different than what would happen if the Sens or Coyotes tried to move on their own with the NHL in opposition.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There is zero case law supporting the view that an NHL owner cannot relocate. Show me the case.

I did in the original link when the NHL tried to stop the North Stars from relocating to Dallas. Or did you just choose to ignore this.

Read this

https://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/...imous-consent/

Case law has been set in pro sports and the only thing written into NHL law is a veto right for franchises within a certain radius of the relocating team. There is nothing the NHL can do if Melnyk decided to move to QC. They could try but it would go to court and the NHL would lose as exampled by established case law. They can block any sale of a franchise, they can get a veto from an existing franchise if it imposes on territory rights, they cannot legally stop a long time established owner from relocating though.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, you’re wrong:



https://www.google.com/amp/s/ottawas...-in-ottawa/amp

That is great, good for Daley. Except the NHL said the same thing about moving the North Stars to Dallas and how did that turn out? They legally do not have a leg to stand on. So ya, I am right.

[PepsiFree]

Also this:

The Bureau's investigation established that under the NHL's rules and procedures, the proposed relocation of a franchise to Southern Ontario would require a majority vote by the NHL Board of Governors. The NHL would not permit any single team to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into Southern Ontario.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/e...eng/02641.html

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is great, good for Daley. Except the NHL said the same thing about moving the North Stars to Dallas and how did that turn out? They legally do not have a leg to stand on. So ya, I am right.

You’re really not, even the federal competition bureau stands by what Daly said. No owner can move a franchise without BOG approval.

But I guess you’re smarter than Daly or the people federally in charge for upholding laws related to this, right?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I did in the original link when the NHL tried to stop the North Stars from relocating to Dallas. Or did you just choose to ignore this.

Read this

https://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/...imous-consent/

Case law has been set in pro sports and the only thing written into NHL law is a veto right for franchises within a certain radius of the relocating team. There is nothing the NHL can do if Melnyk decided to move to QC. They could try but it would go to court and the NHL would lose as exampled by established case law. They can block any sale of a franchise, they can get a veto from an existing franchise if it imposes on territory rights, they cannot legally stop a long time established owner from relocating though.

Did you happen to notice that the article was written by a 3rd year law student? And relies on an NFL antitrust case (which itself suggested things which could be relied on successfully to block a move which the NBA then adopted). The article also has a major omission in that it only looks at territorial vetoes in 4.3 and ignores 4.2 (cited above). And, the NHL didn't even rely on 4.3 so thye issue was entirely moot and hypothetical.

You will pardon me if I don't take this article as black letter law.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Also this:



http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/e...eng/02641.html

Thank you for proving my point. This was the whole Hamilton fiasco where the owner was not in place for 7 years.

The Bureau also examined the seven-year non-relocation covenant that may be contained in a Consent Agreement that prospective owners enter into with the NHL. Such a covenant requires the owner not to seek to relocate the franchise for a period of seven years from the date of the agreement.

Regardless of what a bureau says it is quite clear that is Melnyk wanted to butt heads with Bettman and go to court he has been an owner for over 7 years and
courts in other such cases. Chances are it is never happening anyhow but legally there is nothing saying he cannot do it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is great, good for Daley. Except the NHL said the same thing about moving the North Stars to Dallas and how did that turn out? They legally do not have a leg to stand on. So ya, I am right.

The NHL expressly allowed the move to Dallas. In fact, they did it as a deal with Green:

John Ziegler, president of the NHL, asked me, as the chairman of the NHL marketing committee, to buy the North Stars and make sure the team stayed in Minnesota as long as possible—which I did, for three years.

As one of the lead and original owners of the Calgary Flames—enjoying 10 years of financial success, including winning the Stanley Cup in 1989—I was convinced that my experience in marketing could rekindle the support of the Minnesota fans. But after renovating the old Met Center and producing a top team that almost won the Stanley Cup in 1991, the fans still didn’t buy the critical season tickets, and attendance still fell under 60 percent. It was obvious we needed to move.

We made a deal to move the North Stars to Anaheim, California, to become the L.A. Stars. Anaheim had a new building for hockey that was immediately available. My plans were canceled when Disney offered to put a team in Anaheim and use Disney talent to help market the NHL. In December 1992, the league asked me to allow Disney to come into the league. In return, I would have NHL approval to move the Stars wherever I could make the best deal.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publicatio...ove-to-dallas/

[sureLoss]

Just because the BOG was "powerless" to stop the NorthStars from moving to Dallas in 1993, doesn't mean the NHL hasn't taken steps over the past 25 years to prevent any future owners from doing the same.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Thank you for proving my point. This was the whole Hamilton fiasco where the owner was not in place for 7 years.



Regardless of what a bureau says it is quite clear that is Melnyk wanted to butt heads with Bettman and go to court he has been an owner for over 7 years and
courts in other such cases. Chances are it is never happening anyhow but legally there is nothing saying he cannot do it.

Except for Article 4.2 of the League Constitution which he signed.