I find two interesting things here; first, the New York Times piece features input from a guy who “conducts investigations and background checks for venture capital and private equity firms”, so naturally he’s going to pitch a line that "this all could have been prevented if only they’d used his services.

That said, there was one particularly damning (to the NHL) quote from the recent stories about the criminal charges filed against Boots:

He didn’t have collateral to secure the needed money, so in August 2007, he approached a friend at the San Francisco firm, who also was his broker, court papers say.

The broker e-mailed him statements of other customers, which Del Biaggio altered to make it appear the accounts were his so he could show them to prospective lenders as collateral, papers say.

I’m no expert in financial deals of this nature, but if I’m involved in lending that kind of money, or am in the NHL’s position of approving an ownership transfer, I would go directly to the brokerages and banks myself for verification of assets, not just rely on documents submitted by the prospective borrower. A big part of why I’ve given the NHL a pass on this was because previous stories made it seem like those parties got the forged documentation directly from the brokerage, rather than just from Boots.

Either way, the broker needs to face serious charges, but it does make a difference in how the NHL and the lenders conducted their side of the affair.

To me, two things have been clear in this and other NHL fraud owner fraud (I’m thinking of Spano):

First, the degree of error bay be up for debate, but the NHL simply did not do enough homework.

Second, Boots (like Spano) is a con man, plain and simple. And the NHL — so desperate for knights in shining armor who have millions and an interest in hockey — is very ripe for con men. This is a league that apparently wants every franchise to be valued at $200M minimum, even if there aren’t enough hockey-crazed billionaires in the world who’d pay that. So when a guy dresses the part, has a few of the right friends (Big Phil at AEG vouches for him!), shows up to golf and cigars and says the right things, the NHL must want to believe he’s for real. It’s impolite to ask too many intrusive questions at the country club. I mean, the guy got into the club (through Anschutz?), didn’t he? He must be legit.

It plays out like a movie.

Boots had a stake in the Sharks before becoming the Empty Suit with empty suitcase in hand for Nashville, correct? To that end, he already had a fast “in” with Bettman and the other owners because he ponies up his offer (obviously not his money) and says, “Look, you know me and these buddies of mine Leipold and Anschutz will vouch for me. You guys don’t want Balsillie here so just go with me, OK? I’ll save the Predators and even be nice enough to keep them in Music City, U.S.A. Deal?”

The angle on this story I’ve always thought was true was the owners look at themselves as the most elite fraternity around and if you don’t play ball their way or know the right people, you sure as hell won’t even be able to buy your way into the gang (again, with Balsillie). Boots had the right connections and gave off enough of an air of being financially solvent so he was the easy, and more importantly, quick choice. Once again, the owners managed to make the absolutely wrong choice in the matter.

I thought this headline was about Peter Budaj, whose nickname is “Boots.” It would have been appropriate for him, too. Just saying.