They fought the law, and the law won

The Canadian Press reported this morning [via The Globe and Mail] that Tom Gaglardi and Ryan Beedie lost their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which should secure the Canucks’ ownership situation for the near future. For those unfamiliar with the story, Gaglardi and Beedie claimed they were initially in a partnership with Francesco Aquilini to buy the team. Aquilini left the group nine months before the sale of the Canucks in November 2004, and eventually bought the team from John McCaw a few days after his negotiations with Beedie and Gaglardi fell through. Gaglardi and Beedie claimed that Aquilini had a duty to the partnership not to try and acquire the team on his own, and argued that they should have been included in the purchase. That view has now been rejected by three different courts, including the highest one in the land, so it appears their case is dead and buried. To add insult to injury, they also have to pay Aquilini’s court costs for this latest appeal.

Personally, I don’t think it’s easy to make a moral judgement that one side or the other is clearly in the right. The story that came out in court may not be the complete picture, and it was enough of a he-said, he-said situation to confuse the issue on its own. Some who have commented on it, such as Dennis Prouse, see Aquilini’s move as a low-class way to hurt his former business partners, but it just as easily could have been a legitimate way to acquire the team after the falling-out. Without more details of how the partnership broke down or why McCaw rejected the Gaglardi-Beedie bid, I prefer not to judge who holds the moral high ground here.

Despite that, Aquilini clearly has the better legal case. The Gaglardi-Beedie case seemed rather flimsy from the start to this observer; nine months is a significant period of time, so it’s not like Aquilini was undermining them privately while still pretending to be their partner. Business partnerships, by their nature, tend not to last indefinitely; they work as long as they help both sides and both sides get along. Apparently, that wasn’t the case in this matter, prompting the breakup of the initial partnership. In my mind, there’s no reason Aquilini should have had to give up on trying to buy the team just because he couldn’t work things out with his former partners. Three levels of courts have agreed with that. Moreover, agreements to not compete with former partners haven’t worked out very well for at least one prominent Canadian.

In the end, this is great for the Canucks in my mind. Any sort of forced partnership between Aquilini, Beedie and Gaglardi would have approached Tom Hicks/George Gillett levels of dysfunction, and we all know how well that’s worked out. It’s very difficult to have a successful sports franchise with feuding ownership. I don’t know how Gaglardi and Beedie would have done with the franchise, but one owner is infinitely preferable to three who don’t like each other. Now that the situation’s settled, it appears the Canucks are firmly in the hands of Aquilini, and he’s not a bad choice for an owner; he’s got plenty of cash, he doesn’t seem to have any significant legal issues now this case is done, and he has strong local connections, which should help preserve hockey in Vancouver for a long time. Having one owner can be a great thing in terms of stability, as long as that owner isn’t horrible, and Aquilini hasn’t been a bad owner so far.

In any case, the situation’s now an example of vae victis; woe to the vanquished indeed, for to the winner go the spoils. In this case, the spoils are a successful and profitable hockey team, which Aquilini will retain. As for Gaglardi and Beedie? Play them off, Big Dirty Band!

Tags: court, Francesco Aquilini, George Gillett, John McCaw, ownership, Ryan Beedie, The Globe and Mail, Tom Gaglardi, Tom Hicks