Thanks Gary.Ass.

More g-ddamn summer soap opera intrigue in the sport we love.

Posted by SYF from Las Vegas, NV on 07/17/08 at 09:27 AM ET

I think this is another round of ammunition for those who want Bettman gone; not that an audit probably would have caught Del Biaggio in his lies, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have taken place.

Posted by The Forechecker from Tennessee on 07/17/08 at 09:49 AM ET

I think this is another round of ammunition for those who want Bettman gone…

Who doesn’t want Bettman gone? Anyone? Any hands? Nope? Okay. Thought so.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 07/17/08 at 10:01 AM ET

Finally we are seeing the true cost of pushing hockey in America, thanks to Bertman’s policy of hockey throughout America at any cost.

Posted by anomymouss from Waterloo, ON on 07/17/08 at 10:02 AM ET

If Bettman worked for any other business, he’d be gone for doing this crap… Seriously, this is like first year business class stupid- no due diligence?  “We’ll take your word for it?” From a guy named ”Boots,” no less?!?

This is cause for termination.  Bettman is lucky he’s so far up the rectal cavities of a majority of the owners, or he’d be gone…

Posted by mudshark from Divetown, Colorado on 07/17/08 at 10:06 AM ET

Finally we are seeing the true cost of pushing hockey in America

No, we’re seeing another idiotic move by Bettman.

Thanks, Gary. Ass.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 07/17/08 at 10:07 AM ET

I’d like to say I’m surprised - but no, I’m not surprised at all.

Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 07/17/08 at 10:15 AM ET

I think Boots is a crook and Bettman needs to go...BUT....

Boots was already an NHL owner. I don’t think it sounds unusual that he wouldn’t have to go through a full audit (that would cost the league a pretty penny i’m sure). He was just a minority owner in the Sharks, switching to a minority owner of the Preds.

I’d be willing to bet Craig Leipold didn’t go through a full vetting process when he switched from the Preds to the Wild either.

Posted by Paul Nicholson from Nashville, Tn on 07/17/08 at 10:25 AM ET

Seriously?  Could this could be the end of Bettman?

I have been pretty passive with Gary, giving him the benefit of the doubt most times but this just makes him and the league look terrible.

I agree with the above poster who said if this was the “real-world” he’d be clearing out his desk… maybe he should be anyway!

Posted by WingMan from Canada on 07/17/08 at 10:26 AM ET

Not to mention, i just gotta remind everyone this story is based on the statement from a potential Boots business partner: “Boots bragged to me that...”

My blanket belief in anything that follows pretty much stops there. I have to say it does sound plausible and not unreasonable to me, but you gotta question the source and the source of the source in this case.

Posted by Paul Nicholson from Nashville, TN on 07/17/08 at 10:34 AM ET

I’m certainly no fan of Li’l Gary, and I’d be happy to see him gone, BUT…

given what has already transpired, how could anybody believe what Boots Del Bankruptio says about anything?

Posted by shep from california on 07/17/08 at 10:35 AM ET

I’d be willing to bet Craig Leipold didn’t go through a full vetting process when he switched from the Preds to the Wild either.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Leipold went from an owner with full control of the club, to an owner with full control of another club. There was no gap in NHL ownership between the two, so the league would have already known full well what changed in Leipold’s finances between the time when he got the Preds and when he sold them and bought the Wild. He was also a proven, full owner in the NHL.

In the case of Boots, while he didn’t move from minority owner of the Sharks to a full majority owner of the Preds, he did move to a position as the largest stakeholder in the club. To me, that’s more than a big enough jump, especially considering these sweetheart clauses in his deal that allow him to basically take full control of the club if the other minority partners do anything but sink money into the club.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 07/17/08 at 10:58 AM ET

Re: going from San Jose to Nashville ...

Was there as much talk when Boots was involved with San Jose ownership abotu wanting to move the team to Kansas City as there was when he became interested in an ownership stake in Nashville?

If there wasn’t, then I would think that the change in his interests and visible motives might be enough to prompt a look at the deal from that standpoint, at least - by someone.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/17/08 at 11:12 AM ET

No, the Sharks were never moving to KC.  They’ve got a great thing going in San Jose.

Nashville and Pittsburgh were the only teams rumored to head to Kansas City and Boots getting involved in the Nashville process, at the time, seemed like the League’s way of getting a guy there in place to either play the hero of Nashville or play the part of the NFL Irsay’s and pack up the Mayflower moving trucks in the middle of the night to head to Barbecue Land.

Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 07/17/08 at 11:17 AM ET

Who’s telling the truth and who isn’t?  Hell, maybe nobody is.  But that it’s an embarrassment for the league and the sport is a certainty.

On the other hand a part of me can’t help but think that this is starting to become fun. 

Posted by BobTheZee on 07/17/08 at 02:01 PM ET

Ponzie schemes. Flimflam artists.
What happened to integrity?

Thanks Gary.Ass

Posted by Kate from Pa. on 07/17/08 at 02:45 PM ET