Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

What would it take for Bettman to finally be fired?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#31 ChuckNORRIS4Cup

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,951 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:31 PM


  • 0

Eh8NO.jpg

Trevor Linden Quote Nov. 29th 2012 [Asked if he would return to the game?]
"The game has been with me for a long time, if the right opportunity came about, you never know"


#32 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 14 October 2012 - 06:30 AM

What I don't understand is that this whole issue with players salaries being too high which is nonsense. The owners claim they want more money for themselves which is fair but if that is the case then why offer these stupid contracts in the first place. I believe it is to cloud the real issue which is the bad markets the league and Gary Bettman chose to prop up are failing miserably and now the chickens are coming home to roost. These and many other bad decisions made by this idiot has created all the problems you see before you.

The system created by Bettman and the owners are to blame for the players took a pay cut and gave them a salary cap essentially everything they wanted and are still failing economically. Two thirds of the NHL teams last year lost money including some supposedly good markets and on top of that many of those teams are up for sale and nobody wants them. The players have created more revenue each year post lockout and instead of asking for more money which in the corporate world would be the norm, all they want is what is fair and reasonable.

I think the only way for Gary Bettman to be fired is do like what the Packers fans did with the replacement officials. Gather together with the season ticket holders and threaten to boycott the kickoff of the next home game until the league finally did something. I know in Vancouver most of the fans who go to games are corporate drones who would never do this. But, if the fans especially the season ticket holders would go to the owners and say get rid of the problem or else we get rid of you. I am sure the owners would put the boots to Gary Bettman after all rich people are good at finding someone else to blame.
  • 1

#33 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

When you make 10s-100s of millions for each boss in the last 20 years...you don't get fired
  • 0

#34 swflyers28

swflyers28

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 06

Posted 14 October 2012 - 09:20 AM

He should have been fired already.
  • 0
Posted Image

#35 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

not sure what it would take but i think the NHL is undermining the backlash/effect this may have on fans due to social media. i have been an nhl fan for years but now i couldn't care either way. when it all comes down to it, they want money, the love they claim for the sport is secondary.
  • 0

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#36 Maniwaki Canuck

Maniwaki Canuck

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 812 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

Bettman will be fired when it becomes clear that he has mismanaged the situation from the owners' point of view. It seems that any number of lockouts is fine by them, as long as they get their way in the end. Either we stop watching (not very likely) or something else like the formation of a new league has to occur. If the NHL doesn't really care about delivering a product, eventually someone else will fill the vacuum. I hope it happens sooner than later. Nothing (okay, maybe a few things) would make me happier than seeing the complacent owners holding the bag for a bunch of devalued or worthless franchises.
  • 0

#37 drdeath

drdeath

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,084 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 03

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

He'd have to lose the entire season again. Although the way things look that certainly isn't out of the realms of possibility.
  • 0

aXmDa9t.gif


#38 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

Bettman will be fired when it becomes clear that he has mismanaged the situation from the owners' point of view. It seems that any number of lockouts is fine by them, as long as they get their way in the end. Either we stop watching (not very likely) or something else like the formation of a new league has to occur. If the NHL doesn't really care about delivering a product, eventually someone else will fill the vacuum. I hope it happens sooner than later. Nothing (okay, maybe a few things) would make me happier than seeing the complacent owners holding the bag for a bunch of devalued or worthless franchises.

The last time a group thought they could start a league and compete with the NHL they formed the World Hockey Association or WHA. It lasted 4 or 5 years. If the owners don't feel they can operate profitably then they have every right to cease operation until they think otherwise. The players have the right to play elsewhere as a result.

Bettman is running a business and the bottom line is always the measure of success or failure. Just as you criticize Bettman for the lockout spend some time and look at the NHLPA leadership. Fehr never resolved a MLB dispute without a lockout(2) or a strike(4). This is a struggle for how the revenue is shared, plan and simple. My nature is to sympathize with ownership as they are faced with many issues that fans either don't understand or don't care about.

Back to the OP's point about what it will take for Bettman to be let go. I suspect it would take a major failure of the NHL business plan. IMO that means loss of or possible loss of media revenue. Enough to cloud the individual viability of franchises.
  • 0

#39 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

When you make 10s-100s of millions for each boss in the last 20 years...you don't get fired


Thats not entirely accurate.

Most teams in the NHL are losing money. 18/30 right now are losing money or barely breaking even.....and this is when times are good.

The successful franchises Maple Leafs, Rangers, and Canadiens are carrying the league, and this is not because of Bettman.
  • 0

#40 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:18 PM

The last time a group thought they could start a league and compete with the NHL they formed the World Hockey Association or WHA. It lasted 4 or 5 years. If the owners don't feel they can operate profitably then they have every right to cease operation until they think otherwise. The players have the right to play elsewhere as a result.

Bettman is running a business and the bottom line is always the measure of success or failure. Just as you criticize Bettman for the lockout spend some time and look at the NHLPA leadership. Fehr never resolved a MLB dispute without a lockout(2) or a strike(4). This is a struggle for how the revenue is shared, plan and simple. My nature is to sympathize with ownership as they are faced with many issues that fans either don't understand or don't care about.

Back to the OP's point about what it will take for Bettman to be let go. I suspect it would take a major failure of the NHL business plan. IMO that means loss of or possible loss of media revenue. Enough to cloud the individual viability of franchises.

It would take 23 of the 30 owners to see the light, he has it set up so he only needs 8 owners to back him and he can rule like Napoleon.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#41 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:48 PM

It would take 23 of the 30 owners to see the light, he has it set up so he only needs 8 owners to back him and he can rule like Napoleon.

Seriously, would you sign onto an arrangement like that if you were an owner? You would turn your $200 to $300 million investment over to a group of eight other owners? They might have ceded some negociating authority over to a committee of owners with I am sure pretty tight criteria but that would be it IMO.

If you focus on Bettman as the main obstacle to an agreement I think you are wrong. This is a fight over money plain and simple. The NHLPA might have an argument about whether all HRR is being captured or not. The NHL has to get it right this time or threatened their long term appeal to major media outlets in the USA who were thinking of picking up the NHL option. The success of the NFL, MLB, and the NBA in negociating very lucrative TV contracts is in itself a positive for the NHL. Quite frankly media buyers might take a shot at the NHL simply because they are a cheaper option.

I suspect that if the NHL does not continue to gain media sales then they run the risk of losing or transferring some franchises. Bettman has been reluctant to move teams because it runs down the appeal to national USA media buyers. If TV revenue in the USA continues to grow then the NHL can take a longer view towards growing unprofitable franchises. In the interim either the 4 or 5 very profitable teams have to increase their subsidies to unprofitable teams or the players have to take a cut down from the 57% to roughly 50%. I suspect a mix of the two but the players will take a significant hit.
  • 0

#42 morrissex95

morrissex95

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:12 PM

The only way Bettman would leave the NHL pre-retirement is if he the NBA hires him to replace David Stern. He's the most qualified guy to takeover the NBA and the business model he built for the NHL would do wonders for the NBA.
  • 0
Posted Image

#43 morrissex95

morrissex95

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:13 PM

Bettman spent years in the 90s and early 2000s vetting owners that would be loyal to the business model he was setting out to create. They won't fire Bettman because they didn't just invest in their teams, they invested in Bettman's plan for the NHL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#44 RTG

RTG

    K-Wing Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 09

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:16 PM

Bettman is the most hated man in hockey. My feeling is that he is not respected by any of the players, coaches or GM's. Obviously he doesn't need respect from these people as long as he works for the owners but if another season is lost, I'm convinced he will be canned.

This season could have gone ahead under the terms of the exisitng agreement. The owners and players would have made a crap load of money, the fans and arena workers would have been happy and a new agreement would have eventually been implemented. This would have been the logical thing to do. But it was Bettman who insisted that without an agreement there would be no season.

My feeling is that this heavy handed approach is going to cost him his job. I think he has under estimated the strength of the NHLPA and instead of working with the union he is trying to force it down their throats and it's not going to work this time.

If the entire season is cancelled, Bettman will be fired. And good riddance.
  • 1

#45 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 16 October 2012 - 07:45 AM

Bettman spent years in the 90s and early 2000s vetting owners that would be loyal to the business model he was setting out to create. They won't fire Bettman because they didn't just invest in their teams, they invested in Bettman's plan for the NHL.

No doubt you are right. The question is whether his plan is working. Growing revenue from $400 mil to $3.3 billion during his tenure is hard to argue against. That said I do believe the NHL business plan of marketing to TV media is at a crossroads. The term of the next CBA could tell the tale. Interestingly the NHLPA must have confidence in the plan if they are forecasting NHL revenue growth of 7% per year over the next six years. If they truly believe that then at some point they will agree to a reduced % of revenue.
  • 0

#46 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:20 AM

Seriously, would you sign onto an arrangement like that if you were an owner? You would turn your $200 to $300 million investment over to a group of eight other owners? They might have ceded some negociating authority over to a committee of owners with I am sure pretty tight criteria but that would be it IMO.

If you focus on Bettman as the main obstacle to an agreement I think you are wrong. This is a fight over money plain and simple. The NHLPA might have an argument about whether all HRR is being captured or not. The NHL has to get it right this time or threatened their long term appeal to major media outlets in the USA who were thinking of picking up the NHL option. The success of the NFL, MLB, and the NBA in negociating very lucrative TV contracts is in itself a positive for the NHL. Quite frankly media buyers might take a shot at the NHL simply because they are a cheaper option.

I suspect that if the NHL does not continue to gain media sales then they run the risk of losing or transferring some franchises. Bettman has been reluctant to move teams because it runs down the appeal to national USA media buyers. If TV revenue in the USA continues to grow then the NHL can take a longer view towards growing unprofitable franchises. In the interim either the 4 or 5 very profitable teams have to increase their subsidies to unprofitable teams or the players have to take a cut down from the 57% to roughly 50%. I suspect a mix of the two but the players will take a significant hit.

Doesn't matter if I would, the BoG DID. This isn't speculation, it is FACT, he can veto virtually any BoG descision with the backing of just 8 owners.

Apologists for Bettman will tell you that the lockout isn't personal, that the commissioner is merely an employee doing the bidding of the 30 owners. It's true that the NHL reached out to Bettman because it was envious of the rival NBA with its salary cap and a lucrative national TV deal in the U.S. But Gatehouse, who once scribbled for The Gazette, points out that Bettman has consolidated his power to the point where he has virtual veto power over any deal as long as he maintains the support of eight owners. It's inconceivable that every owner is 100 per cent behind the current lockout, but we'll never know because the NHL has suppressed the sacred right of free speech by imposing fines of up to $1 million for anyone who deviates from the party line.

http://www.montrealg...1764/story.html




As much as the league’s ownership suites are populated by the ranks of billionaires and billion-dollar corporations, there are actually only a select few power brokers who enjoy a say in the matters that matter. Boston’s Jeremy Jacobs, Detroit’s Mike Ilitch, Chicago’s Rocky Wirtz, Philadelphia’s Ed Snider — they’re pre-Bettman lifers who’ve carved out influence and power in hockey’s cigar-chomping old-boys’ club. As for the men who run MLSE — they’re most certainly not among the core group.
It comes down to simple math. In most scenarios Bettman only needs the consent of eight owners to veto any agreement. It’s no wonder, then, that Bettman’s hawkish anti-union base often gets its way while the let’s-just-play moderates in Toronto and New York and Montreal get ignored.
http://www.thestar.c...er-play-feschuk


Edited by Norman Clegg, 16 October 2012 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#47 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:37 PM

Doesn't matter if I would, the BoG DID. This isn't speculation, it is FACT, he can veto virtually any BoG descision with the backing of just 8 owners.

Apologists for Bettman will tell you that the lockout isn't personal, that the commissioner is merely an employee doing the bidding of the 30 owners. It's true that the NHL reached out to Bettman because it was envious of the rival NBA with its salary cap and a lucrative national TV deal in the U.S. But Gatehouse, who once scribbled for The Gazette, points out that Bettman has consolidated his power to the point where he has virtual veto power over any deal as long as he maintains the support of eight owners. It's inconceivable that every owner is 100 per cent behind the current lockout, but we'll never know because the NHL has suppressed the sacred right of free speech by imposing fines of up to $1 million for anyone who deviates from the party line.

http://www.montrealg...1764/story.html




As much as the league’s ownership suites are populated by the ranks of billionaires and billion-dollar corporations, there are actually only a select few power brokers who enjoy a say in the matters that matter. Boston’s Jeremy Jacobs, Detroit’s Mike Ilitch, Chicago’s Rocky Wirtz, Philadelphia’s Ed Snider — they’re pre-Bettman lifers who’ve carved out influence and power in hockey’s cigar-chomping old-boys’ club. As for the men who run MLSE — they’re most certainly not among the core group.
It comes down to simple math. In most scenarios Bettman only needs the consent of eight owners to veto any agreement. It’s no wonder, then, that Bettman’s hawkish anti-union base often gets its way while the let’s-just-play moderates in Toronto and New York and Montreal get ignored.
http://www.thestar.c...er-play-feschuk

Your links supporting the idea that Bettman is a dictator within the NHL are proof of nothing. They are speculation. Quoting that idiot from TO talk sports is more than laughable.

I am more than comfortable that if the majority of owners within the NHL wanted Gary Bettman gone he would be gone. No group of owners will cede their ownership control to one individual. Thinking otherwise is foolishness.
  • 0

#48 Sup CROW

Sup CROW

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 12

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

I more lockout and he's gone
  • 0

#49 Spitfire_Spiky

Spitfire_Spiky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:56 PM

I think based on how quickly Bettman can get this lockout resolved then once the dust settles and everyone gets a good grasp on what they lost and how the game will be affected for the rest of the season he might not make it out of this lockout as the commissioner.
  • 0
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

#50 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 16 October 2012 - 06:15 PM

Well, to answer the question at hand, Bettman can get fired if seven owners in particular force the others' hands... by threatening to withdraw from the NHL. They can afford to do so, because their teams rake in a combined majority of the league's profits - without their teams, the NHL can go bankrupt in a matter of years (if even that). These guys, meanwhile, can afford to follow through with their threat, because they hold the lion's share of the NHL market and their neighbouring cities would jump at fielding major-league teams of their own.

The other 23 owners all know this, and even Jeremy Jacobs and Ed Snider can't beat this rap. They will have no option but to fire Bettman. Only thing is, this group of owners aren't doing a thing with the power they hold.

Guess who the seven are. (Hint: Fransesco Acquilini is one of them).
  • 0

#51 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Joined: 07-June 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:27 AM

Gary Bettman still doesn't get it. He truly believes if he holds his breath long enough the players will fold like last time. The only reason it worked last time was that with the NHL's offer it would give a raise for the ham an egger NHLers like Mike Commodore from 100,000 to 500,000 a year. It pinned the stars and superstars of the NHL against the scrubs like the 3rd and 4th liners which make up the majority. This time Donald Fehr has the NHLPA galvanized, organized and fully informed of the issues going on so the players will have less a reason to distrust their union.

On top of that he has included in his proposals to give revenue sharing to all the teams no just the ones Bettman has chosen for to help. This will start if it hasn't already dissension among the owners to get a fair deal when it comes to spreading the wealth. Not just keep supporting money pits like Phoenix which will never work. The players also have leverage for they can go to europe and still make lots of money and not deal with owners who have no intention of honoring contracts they signed in good faith only a few months ago.

The longer this goes the more the value of each NHL franchise will diminish and if this does last the entire year the owners will have to blink first this time. Gary Bettman is willing to play poker with house money in that the fans will return no matter what and while some will return he'd be wrong to assume that the NHL will return as strong as it was before. I for one will not pay for anything NHL related including going to any games until Gary Bettman is canned and I hope many others will do the same and maybe the owners will finally get the message loud and clear and get this done.
  • 0

#52 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:17 AM

This lockout may not be entirely his fault although 3 lockouts in his tenure is surely a sign that he needs to go.
  • 0

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#53 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:49 AM

Says you....lol In an owners stand point he's doing exactly what thye want...he's not in there to do what he thinks is best...he is there "representing" the OWNERS...
  • 0

#54 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,437 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:54 PM

I think you need to watch the recent video.

At first I sided with the owners.

Not I understand the players.

Bettman has claimed the NHL in the past 2 years have scored record high revenues.

With all these revenues, it shoudln't be a problem paying your players right??

no......

Owners want to pay players even less. WTH. It would have been a diffrent story if the NHL was actually struggling. But's it not, as stated by Bettman. So why are you low balling the players?????

Ownership fail. Bettman failed. During the 05 lock out I sided with the owners, now I am with the players. Players aren't even asking for much too, they were even ok with the current cba.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#55 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:04 AM

After 3 lockouts and the NHL and its reputation falling faster by the second, how could anyone possibly want to keep this guy employed any longer. Some say that its not Bettman's fault that he is only doing what the owners tell him and if that is true than why do you need to spend 8 million a year on a hand puppet. I am positive that if the owners come to their senses and fire Buttman and replace him with a guy like Gretzky there would be a deal done within a week.

There seems to me a delusion that Bettman has that the NHLPA will break if he holds his breath long enough. But realistically the Union has much more solidarity than the last lockout and with the proper revenue sharing proposal that Fehr and the PA gave the NHL someone will have to decide who's to blame for all of this. Last time the players gave back everything to the owners and the system that Bettman drew up and failed yet again. The only teams that get any money from the NHL are the failed markets that idiots like Bettman put in the first place. But teams like Anahiem, StL,Isles or teams in large markets get nothing which is completely unfair.

If Bettman had any brains he would try to negotiate a one year deal to save the season and try to get some more time to fix things otherwise you are going to lose the rest of the US market and will only have Canada left and even that will be tenuous at best.


Like Bettman, Gretzky would be fired if he DIDN"T do what the owners wanted. The reason they have a "hand puppet" is so they don't have to get together and run the league on a daily basis. They hire a "hand puppet" to do that for them.

The reason the last deal has failed is the "have owners" looking for ways around the deal to screw the "have not teams". The real problem is not Bettman, it's those top 6 money making owners and their circumvention contracts.

The bottom line is this: Everything Bettman has done, including expanding into non-hockey markets, has been at the owners bidding. It's exactly why he's held his job so long.
  • 0
Posted Image

#56 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:37 AM

Doesn't matter if I would, the BoG DID. This isn't speculation, it is FACT, he can veto virtually any BoG descision with the backing of just 8 owners.


Nope, not "any" BoG decision. That's only in regards to Bettman vetoing an NHLPA contract offer. If 23 of the 30 owners agree to a deal offered by the NHLPA they override Bettman saying no to it. To ratify an offer Bettman endorses only 16 of the 30 owners have to vote in favor. When you consider Bettman goes in with a solid idea of what the owners want it's unlikely they'd overrule an offer Bettman vetoes. Just as I doubt Bettman would arbitrarily veto an offer that was "in the ballpark" without running it buy the owners first. It's really nothing more than a safeguard in place to ensure Bettman is doing what the majority of owners want in negotiations.
  • 0
Posted Image

#57 brenbowa

brenbowa

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 08

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:10 AM

Like Bettman, Gretzky would be fired if he DIDN"T do what the owners wanted. The reason they have a "hand puppet" is so they don't have to get together and run the league on a daily basis. They hire a "hand puppet" to do that for them.

The reason the last deal has failed is the "have owners" looking for ways around the deal to screw the "have not teams". The real problem is not Bettman, it's those top 6 money making owners and their circumvention contracts.

The bottom line is this: Everything Bettman has done, including expanding into non-hockey markets, has been at the owners bidding. It's exactly why he's held his job so long.

Those top 6 owners you are talking about are Bettman's biggest supporters, why would he punish them. Jeremy Jacobs got a Stanley Cup, Rocky Wirtz also got a Cup and Ed Snider almost got one. All these owners have handed out crazy contracts and have put players in the minors to circumvent the cap and are contenders because of this. They have cheated the system that they and Bettman have put in place for they're own personal gain.

The owners wanted expansion but to markets that can actually make money not give them corporate welfare every year. Bettman went to the owners and sold them the BS that these Southern markets can work so take the ridiculous expansion fees and pocket them and we will worry about the repercussions later. Bettman and the owners did not do their due diligence to see the long term effects on over expanding too quickly and watering down the league.

The reason Bettman has held his job so long is that the owners who have put him in power in the first place are greedy shortsighted idiots who looked for the easiest buck with the least amount of effort. While the league did grow in spite of itself and all its mistakes, can you imagine how much the game would have grown with good leadership and vision. The potential could be off the charts instead of being a 3 billion industry it could be double that and more but instead with all these lockouts and incompetence the game has fallen off the charts. In the last lockout monster trucks and poker passed hockey in the US, what is next spelling bees and chess? I think the players should sign the owners 50-50 deal for one year on one condition, Bettman walks away from the NHL for good never to be seen again and you watch how much better things will get.
  • 0

#58 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:16 AM

Those top 6 owners you are talking about are Bettman's biggest supporters, why would he punish them. Jeremy Jacobs got a Stanley Cup, Rocky Wirtz also got a Cup and Ed Snider almost got one. All these owners have handed out crazy contracts and have put players in the minors to circumvent the cap and are contenders because of this. They have cheated the system that they and Bettman have put in place for they're own personal gain.

The owners wanted expansion but to markets that can actually make money not give them corporate welfare every year. Bettman went to the owners and sold them the BS that these Southern markets can work so take the ridiculous expansion fees and pocket them and we will worry about the repercussions later. Bettman and the owners did not do their due diligence to see the long term effects on over expanding too quickly and watering down the league.

The reason Bettman has held his job so long is that the owners who have put him in power in the first place are greedy shortsighted idiots who looked for the easiest buck with the least amount of effort. While the league did grow in spite of itself and all its mistakes, can you imagine how much the game would have grown with good leadership and vision. The potential could be off the charts instead of being a 3 billion industry it could be double that and more but instead with all these lockouts and incompetence the game has fallen off the charts. In the last lockout monster trucks and poker passed hockey in the US, what is next spelling bees and chess? I think the players should sign the owners 50-50 deal for one year on one condition, Bettman walks away from the NHL for good never to be seen again and you watch how much better things will get.


What makes you so certain the money makers wanted the lockout? Although long term it will benefit them as well. Less to players means more in their pockets.

Bettman didn't "sell" the owners on the south as a money maker. The owners gave him the agenda. Expand the market to get US national TV deals. Don't confuse "expand the market" with adding new teams. It mean attract new customers, or in this case fans in the process. It's a hard sell to convince a national network to cover a sport that isn't national. Hence expansion to the south. Making the sport more national and attracting new fans. The owners knew it would be a long process but it is working to some extent. The US fanbase has grown as a result but those teams still can't charge what the money makers can. The money makers start handing out rediculous contracts these teams can't afford. Those teams then can't compete. A team that can't compete will have trouble attracting fans, never mind new fans. The money owners are undermining their own agenda.

The owners wanted expansion into new markets, yet turn around and do their best to screw those new markets. Bettman isn't the problem, those money owners are. Those rediculous contracts they hand out set the market value for the rest of the league. In comes a salary cap. The money owners then start looking for ways to circumvent the cap (like Luongo's deal) and again screw the other teams. And that has led us to this lockout. Bettman isn't the problem. The money owners are the leagues worst enemy.

There's absolutely no point in signing a one year deal. It gives the players no incentive to bargain. When you want to take something away the only way to get that is to force it. The only way to force it is to lock the players out and stop paying them.
  • 0
Posted Image

#59 Losing With Pride

Losing With Pride

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,721 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 06

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:07 PM

I bet he could commit first degree murder and still have a job with the NHL
  • 0

#60 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 27 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

ehhh im not angry at bettman as much as this group of 8 owners

i feel like it doesnt matter whos in charge aslong as 8 owners are speaking for the whole pack the idea of a nhl season this year is very slim
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.