Ballsy Update

If this is true, it could mean that round one goes to Ballsy;

"Moyes declined to comment Tuesday, but a spokesman said (Judge) Baum made it clear Moyes still owned the team." - Az Central

I mentioned before there were two major legal decisions that had to go in Ballsy's favour, the first is whether or not Moyes can file for bankruptcy without League involvement - and (as predicted) it looks like he can.

The second will be whether Ballsy's conditional offer is the best for the creditors of the team - and that is a whole-other kettle of fish.

Interestingly, the NHL asked the judge for a quickee ruling on whether or not the team was a 'mobile asset' - essentially asking for resolution on Ballsy's second hurdle. Over the course of the day apparently the Ballsy lawyers agreed with the request. The Judge however noted that the Ballsy camp had yet to file a notice with the league that they intend to move the franchise, and Ballsy's lawyers were criticized for suggesting they didn't see the point given Bettman's position on the issue, because the decision would be one for the Board of Governors, not Bettman.

Which brings the whole thing back to one legal and one procedural question;

- If Ballsy's conditional offer meets legal requirements.

- If the NHL BOG approves the move internally.

Here's the rub, I think Ballsy stands a good chance to win on the first by having the judge grant him the team and its right to move, and lose on the second when the BOG rally to Bettman and vote to prevent the move. I further suspect that both sides know aprox what the BOG will say ('hell no'), which is why Ballsy hasn't formally asked them the question.

The BOG is in a tricky spot as well. If teams exercise a 'veto' (i.e. Buffalo/Toronto) that may place the league in an anti-trust position - and give Ballsy more reasons to sue. But if the BOG unanimously rejects the move without resorting to a veto, the blockage may end up being legal, and Ballsy could be stuck in the dessert.

Stay tuned!