Today’s word of the day is “rules” and can be described as: (1) Governing power or its possession or use; authority (2) To dominate by powerful influence (3) An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct and regulations governing the procedures in a legislative body observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.
Much as been talked about or written about the apparent rules that a prospective owner for a NHL franchise must follow to be awarded a team. Are these strictly followed by both the league and agreed to by the new owner or are they just guidelines that are only enforced if any of the parties choose to?
One of these rules surrounding much of the controversy is the so called NHL’s “seven year rule” which would require the new owner of the franchise to remain in the present team city for seven years before relocating it. So, is this an actual rule or regulation in the NHL’s Constitutions and Bylaws? If it is, I could not find it. I painfully undertook the task of reading through anything affiliated with relocation, transfer and new ownership but could only find something in the application process. That was more about the timing of an application to transfer a team having to be completed by January 1st of the year prior to the year a team would start its first season in a new location. That’s all I found nothing more specific and finally gave up due to lack of time, patience and the general understanding in the misleading wording in the documents themselves. If someone knows of anything more, please feel free to post a comment.
I now believe that the “seven year “is not actually about a rule but more about the real power behind it. By trying to have Jim Balsillie agree to another seven years of financial loss by remaining in Phoenix where the Coyotes already own this record since relocating from Winnipeg seven years ago, the NHL can deter and monopolize its franchises and who owns them. This dismal prospect would be like receiving the maximum penalty for breaking two mirrors. So, does anyone ever truly own a NHL franchise or is it really just someone that’s allowed to play. Since the “rules” seemed to be arbitrary and the rulers have all authority when to direct them, it seems that either you play along or you don’t play at all.
Good questions throughout this blog. I like your "words" of the day. You might want to start looking at all the individual's involved as you're topics because the NHL itself is only one piece of this. Might want to check out who's running it.
ReplyDelete