I really wish we had an official answer on the issue of territories. The NHL constitution really can be interpreted two ways, but in one of them they would need to pay indemnification to the Ducks and Kings and in the other, they would not.
The way it's worded and accepted by fans for the purposes of our fan conversations:
San Diego CAN get a team without paying LA or ANA because they're more than 50 miles away from those cities.
San Diego CAN'T build an arena and play in an area that's within their own 50-mile territory, but ALSO within someone else's, unless they pay for that right.
In other words, you don't "get a full circle" if you buy the SD team. (Which is fine, because you don't WANT to build an arena in Carlsbad anyway, and 40% of the "full circle" is the Pacific Ocean).
Being outside the 50mi radius didn't stop Philadelphia from holding up the Rockies' move to New Jersey (roughly 100mi from city limit to city limit) until that owner paid up. With this in mind, if Anaheim and LA wanted to block a team in San Diego, or Chicago really wanted to block a team going to Milwaukee, they could certainly try.
I'm sure there are acceptable limits to indemnification, but based on what Philadelphia did, despite East Rutherford being well outside Philadelphia's market area, don't expect ANA/LA or CHI to go down without a fight.
The thing with Philly and New Jersey was probably threefold (And I'm not pretending to be a historian here, it just stands to reason..)
#1 - Despite being technically "allowed" by the rules as we have them written now (might not have been exactly the same back then), a team in New Jersey has 40% of their circle overlap with 40% of Philly's circle.
Jersey would have like 7% of their circle NOT be covered by NY/PHI, so the intention to steal fans from other people was obvious.
#2 - That's Philly's TV territory. You had rules written for the ticket sale era, and now we're starting the cable TV era. So the dispute was like about TV rights.
#3 - The vote. We don't know the details of the vote. They could have had to buy off Philly to get enough votes for approval. In a 21-team league, you need 16 yes votes to move.
In the New York Times article (God Bless their online archives!) it says:
"The final problem blocking the proposed sale and transfer had been that of realigning the N.H.L.'s teams geographically within the four divisions. It was solved when the Winnipeg Jets agreed to move from the Norris Division to the Smythe, joining Edmonton, Los Angeles, Vancouver and Calgary. In return for joining a division that plays most of its games two time zones to the west, Winnipeg received financial aid and scheduling concessions."
Whereas if the NHL expands to San Diego, there's no realignment required. San Diego goes in the Pacific and no one has to move unless the NHL adds another team West of Vegas, or two more Western conference teams.
One thing with league votes is that every vote ENDS unanimous (or maybe 1 dissenter max) in the press release. Not just NHL, but most leagues/organizations. It's a closed door meeting and NO ONE wants it to get out that they voted against something that passed. Everyone votes how they feel, you see the results, and then VOTE AGAIN, and all the people who lost change their vote so you can have a unanimous vote in the press release.
Specific example of this: The ACC announced that Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College were invited after unanimous votes. But their FIRST votes wren't unanimous, because Boston College LOST and had to be invited later (and join the league a year later).
The only time you see a vote NOT be unanimous is when someone wants to make a public statement (George Steinbrenner voting against the first MLB CBA with a luxury tax).
On that last paragraph, absolutely. That's what I was saying on the last page. It doesn't really matter if teams truly have the right to veto. The BoG is never going to approve a team in someone's territory unless that team agrees to it.
Yeah, I think it's truly moot because the league is not set up in a way where the juice is worth the squeeze of forcing a team upon someone else.
The hockey market in the LA basin seems too saturated to me, so might as well kill two waterfowl with one stone:
Move the Ducks to San Diego.
Anaheim isn't Los Angeles; and San Diego isn't Los Angeles or Anaheim either.