|
|
Post by kidshowtime on May 11, 2011 15:04:18 GMT -5
This was posted last year - but I thought it was worth to bring up again for discussion. this is courtesy of member, potrzebie, who posted this a year ago "Bylaw 36 allows any planned relocation of existing franchises to be determined by a majority vote of the Board of Governors, which is intended to over-ride individual vetoes outlined in Section 4.3 of the Constitution. A relocation vote initiated under bylaw 36 does not render automatic approval however, as any franchise owner seeking to transfer his or her team is first required to comply with an extensive process that includes a written application to the NHL Commissioner no later than January 1 of the year prior to the proposed relocation. The application requires justification for the transfer, complete with supporting documentation, which leads to the commissioner striking a committee to review the merits of the application and reporting back to the Board of Governors. Prior to the vote, the franchise seeking relocation has the chance to present to the Board and answer questions." www.cba.org/CBA/sections_competit....on_Policies.pdf"This, of course, is why the By-Laws specifically require that all relocation applications must be made by January 1 of the year preceding the season in which the team proposes to begin play in its new location". v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CoyotesDaly.pdfI believe this would mean that the deal needs to already be done. |
|
|
|
Post by bannedana204 on May 11, 2011 15:06:40 GMT -5
Nice find.  |
|
fitzy0019
Veteran Member
BRING 'EM HOME!
Posts: 142
|
Post by fitzy0019 on May 11, 2011 15:12:07 GMT -5
i dont know the exact details, but i remember finding/reading info that says that all this can be bypassed in an emergency situation by the bog and commissioner. does anyone know what was said or writen on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by yukonjoe on May 11, 2011 15:13:50 GMT -5
The last half dozen franchise moves (including Winnipeg to Phoenix) circumvented that rule. It's a non-issue. The BOG can always get around their own bylaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by WJG on May 11, 2011 15:13:57 GMT -5
That rule is basically up to the NHL's discretion.
Last year TNSE was willing to take the Coyotes in May, and I highly doubt they filed a relocation application 5 months prior.
|
|
|
|
Post by shtinky on May 11, 2011 15:15:10 GMT -5
i dont know the exact details, but i remember finding/reading info that says that all this can be bypassed in an emergency situation by the bog and commissioner. does anyone know what was said or writen on this? If all parties agree (and they would if it were clearly to the benefit of the NHL and its member clubs), the requirements can be waived. |
|
|
|
Post by Domi on May 11, 2011 15:19:43 GMT -5
The last half dozen franchise moves (including Winnipeg to Phoenix) circumvented that rule. It's a non-issue. The BOG can always get around their own bylaws. Yes, the NHL can always get around its by-laws, but I think they like to follow them if they can. If you recall, there was a lot of excitement when a certain Mr. Ford bumped up a meter to 99%. If I recall, the date of that was late December 2010. Now if you let me put on my foil hat and speculate, perhaps he was aware of a relocation application being made in time for the deadline? Just pure speculation, but the timing works. |
|
|
|
Post by tsm aka. JoeFromWinnipeg on May 11, 2011 15:22:04 GMT -5
The last half dozen franchise moves (including Winnipeg to Phoenix) circumvented that rule. It's a non-issue. The BOG can always get around their own bylaws. Yes, the NHL can always get around its by-laws, but I think they like to follow them if they can. If you recall, there was a lot of excitement when a certain Mr. Ford bumped up a meter to 99%. If I recall, the date of that was late December 2010. Now if you let me put on my foil hat and speculate, perhaps he was aware of a relocation application being made in time for the deadline? Just pure speculation, but the timing works. "foil hat" - ;D |
|
|
|
Post by waveraven on May 11, 2011 15:24:12 GMT -5
Yeah ...... the Jan 1 date for relocation is about as firm as the Dec 31 2010 deadline for the yotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on May 11, 2011 15:24:36 GMT -5
Yeah ...... the Jan 1 date for relocation is about as firm as the Dec 31 2010 deadline for the yotes. Bingo |
|
|
|
Post by potrzebie on May 11, 2011 15:37:54 GMT -5
This was posted last year - but I thought it was worth to bring up again for discussion. this is courtesy of member, potrzebie, who posted this a year ago "Bylaw 36 allows any planned relocation of existing franchises to be determined by a majority vote of the Board of Governors, which is intended to over-ride individual vetoes outlined in Section 4.3 of the Constitution. A relocation vote initiated under bylaw 36 does not render automatic approval however, as any franchise owner seeking to transfer his or her team is first required to comply with an extensive process that includes a written application to the NHL Commissioner no later than January 1 of the year prior to the proposed relocation. The application requires justification for the transfer, complete with supporting documentation, which leads to the commissioner striking a committee to review the merits of the application and reporting back to the Board of Governors. Prior to the vote, the franchise seeking relocation has the chance to present to the Board and answer questions." www.cba.org/CBA/sections_competit....on_Policies.pdf"This, of course, is why the By-Laws specifically require that all relocation applications must be made by January 1 of the year preceding the season in which the team proposes to begin play in its new location". v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CoyotesDaly.pdfI believe this would mean that the deal needs to already be done. Thank you.. thank you very much..  Also, the meaning is open to interpretation as well. " A written application to the NHL Commissioner no later than January 1 of the year prior to the proposed relocation" would indicate that application would have had to have been made by January 1st 2010 for a relocation for the upcoming 2011-12 season. I have seen people interpret it as January 1st in the season preceding the relocation season as well. I go with the former although I don't think it's ever been enforced. |
|
|
|
Post by Trent Steele on May 11, 2011 15:41:25 GMT -5
To me I would see that is applicable for existing owners attempting to move the team while retaining ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by potrzebie on May 11, 2011 15:55:35 GMT -5
To me I would see that is applicable for existing owners attempting to move the team while retaining ownership. I don't believe Peter Karmanos applied for relocation by this deadline. When he announced on March 26th 1997 that the Whalers would move at the end of the 96-97 season, he didn't even have a final destination picked out. Just "anywhere but Hartford". |
|
|
|
Post by Pokey on May 11, 2011 16:04:57 GMT -5
There's a 60 million dollar relocation fee, if I'm not mistaken.
Basically like a buyout of that part of the contract.
|
|
qratt
Veteran Member
Posts: 134
|
Post by qratt on May 11, 2011 16:06:36 GMT -5
Clearly the NHL makes the rules as they go along.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on May 11, 2011 16:17:21 GMT -5
The last half dozen franchise moves (including Winnipeg to Phoenix) circumvented that rule. It's a non-issue. The BOG can always get around their own bylaws. Agreed! Old news that we discussed at length probably in multiple threads now. Chris |
|
