View full size photo »

Well, things are getting fun.

David Shoalts has all of the details in handy article form, focusing mainly on Richard Peddie and the call for the Maple Leafs executive to be put "on the hot seat." He'll have some company though, as 10 different individuals are being requested for depositions — five from the debtors' side and five from the league's side. To this point, No. 1 through 4 and No. 6 have agreed to be questioned.

Both groups present their reasonings for wanting to depose their choices, something that gives us some insight into what they're looking for from those depositions:

Who Balsillie/Moyes want to question and why

1. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly
"Debtors intend to question Mr. Daly regarding the substance of his declaration, the process by which the Board came to this conclusion, and other associated matters raised by the NHL’s motions."

2. Wild owner Craig Leipold
"Debtors intend to question Mr. Leipold regarding the substance of his declaration, his statements made to the executive board of the NHL as reflected in the NHL’s July 29, 2009 report regarding the information considered with respect to PSE and Mr. Balsillie’s transfer application, as well as any additional personal knowledge he has related to the consideration of the transfer application by the NHL’s executive board and board of governors, and other associated matters raised by the NHL’s motions."

3. Bruins owner and chairman of NHL board Jeremy Jacobs
"Debtors intend to question Mr. Jacobs regarding the substance of his declaration, his presence and recollections of the executive committee meeting he attended where Mr. Balsillie was interviewed, as well as any additional information he has related to the consideration of the transfer application by the NHL’s executive board and board of governors, and other associated matters raised by the NHL’s motions."

4. Commissioner Gary Bettman
"In open court on August 11, 2009, the NHL represented that Mr. Bettman was available to testify as to the reasons the Coyotes could not relocate for the 2009-2010 season. Mr. Bettman was also involved in the process by which the NHL denied PSE and Mr. Balsillie’s transfer application. Debtors seek to depose Mr. Bettman regarding his personal knowledge supporting the NHL’s position that the Coyotes cannot be relocated for the 2009-2010 season, the process by which PSE and Mr. Balsillie’s transfer application was considered and denied, and other associated matters raised by the NHL’s motions."

5. MLSE president Richard Peddie
"He has been quoted as saying that he/the Toronto Maple Leafs would not allow the NHL to move an existing team or an expansion team into the exclusive territory of the Maple Leafs. Debtors seek to depose Mr. Peddie as to his involvement in the process by which PSE and Mr. Balsillie’s transfer application was denied, the discussions he had with other NHL member teams and/or NHL representatives regarding PSE and Mr. Balsillie’s transfer application, any attempts by Mr. Peddie or the Toronto Maple Leafs to exercise the veto rights teams have accorded to them through the NHL By-Laws and Constitution regarding a team moving into the exclusive territory of another team, and other associated matters raised by the NHL’s motions."

Who the NHL wants to question and why

6. & 7. Jim Balsillie and his lawyer Richard Rodier
"The NHL proposes to examine Mr. Balsillie and Mr. Rodier on (i) the grounds for the NHL's denial of PSE's ownership application, (ii) possible collusion between PSE, Mr. Moyes, and the Debtors regarding this bankruptcy action and the Debtors' attempts to market and sell the Phoenix Coyotes, and (iii) the terms of his proposed APA and the contingencies set forth therein."

8. & 9. Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes and his lawyer Earl Scudder
"The NHL proposes to examine Mr. Moyes and Mr. Scudder regarding (i) the NHL's control of the Club since November 2008, (ii) possible collusion between PSE, Mr. Moyes, and the Debtors regarding this bankruptcy action, (iii) attempts both before and after the filing of the bankruptcy petition to market and sell the Phoenix Coyotes, (iv) Mr. Moyes' management of the Club, and (v) Mr. Moyes' financial transactions with the Club.

10. Coyotes president Doug Moss
"The NHL proposes to examine Mr. Douglas Moss regarding the operation of the Phoenix Coyotes both before and after the filing of the bankruptcy petition."

The NHL's objection to deposing Peddie

"The NHL has offered to make available all four witnesses that PSE has requested on transfer of ownership issues. The NHL objects, however, to PSE's request to depose Mr. Richard Peddie, an owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Mr. Peddie is not relevant to the ownership transfer issue. He is not a member of the NHL Executive Committee. He did not attend the interview of Mr. Balsillie, the NHL Executive Committee meeting on July 29, 2009, or the Board of Governors meeting later that same day. Moreover, the Maple Leafs abstained from the vote on Mr. Balsillie's application. PSE and Debtors seek to depose Mr. Peddie solely on relocation-related issues, specifically PSE's theory that the Maple Leafs have "veto rights" under the NHL Constitution regarding a team potentially moving into the Maple Leafs' home territory. In sum, there is no need for his deposition at all, and certainly not right now. (We also note that Mr. Peddieis not a party to this action.)"

Reading the tea leaves

When it comes to the Peddie business, here was what the Moyes camp filed in early May in relation to the offending quote (under the heading "The NHL's Conspiracy to Oppose Relocation of the Coyotes Club"):

In 1993, Richard Peddie, President of the Toronto Maple Leafs, dismissed the relocation of the Ottawa Senators to Hamilton as something that "would not be acceptable to us." Mr. Peddie elaborated that because "franchises are a function of the market they're in, the size, the demographics," and "part of the value of the Maple Leafs is the territory," permitting the relocation of another NHL franchise to Hamilton "would be giving away a lot of our territory or sharing a lot of our territory, so that would be unacceptable."

I know that's a ton of stuff there, so I'll leave you with this: If you want to take a look at the antitrust argument that may be coming, it's all already been laid out right here. It seems unlikely to me that they'll get into all of this in this particular court battle, but I'll let some of our resident legal experts weigh in on that.