While I have not been following the bankruptcy proceedings too closely, my sense of the essence of the NHL's argument to the Court is as follows: Forget about protecting all of the creditors. Forget about Jim Balsillie's offer, eventhough his bid is the only one that would cover all of the creditors. We don't like him. He'll never be asked into our inner circle. And don't ask us to cover all of the creditors. Let them some of them fend for themselves. After all, we have rules and Jim doesn't play by them. Oh, and please forget that you ever heard that we were prepared to consent to the team being moved out of Phoenix at some later date. That lower bid, with all of those sought-after tax concessions, was made by someone whom we do like. Finally, don't you dare inquire into our how we run our business affairs, eventhough they impact directly on the fate of the creditors. Do I have this right? If so, aren't they over-playing their hand just a wee bit?