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

#61 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:00 PM

Bettman is the most identifiable icon in the game of hockey - and that's just plain sad.
A lockout has become his perennial bargaining power play - and that's completely unacceptable.
To top it off, this current dysfunction is being spoken to with a smug kind of arrogance that does nothing but breed disrespect for the management side of the game and conversely shows next to no respect for the clients/customers/fans of the game.
Time for a fresh start - and good timing for him to drop off his resume at NBA headquarters...
  • 0

#62 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:03 PM

The owners dont 'owe' the players anything. The CBA is up. They actually dont work for the NHL anymore. Thats why they are locked out.

The NHLPA is out of a job. They need to get it back. The owners dont have to do anything. IN fact, they should simply get replacement players , start a new union, and keep drafting and permanently ban the current players unless they are willing to leave the NHLPA and join the new union.
  • 0
Posted Image

#63 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,092 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:40 PM

The owners dont 'owe' the players anything. The CBA is up. They actually dont work for the NHL anymore. Thats why they are locked out.

The NHLPA is out of a job. They need to get it back. The owners dont have to do anything. IN fact, they should simply get replacement players , start a new union, and keep drafting and permanently ban the current players unless they are willing to leave the NHLPA and join the new union.


Huh? The owners should start a new union?
  • 0

#64 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:43 PM

What would it take for Bettman to be fired? A miracle
  • 0

#65 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:47 PM

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.


What kind of an idiot would fire the person who grew their business from $400 million to $3.3billion??

  • 2

#66 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:30 PM

The owners dont 'owe' the players anything. The CBA is up. They actually dont work for the NHL anymore. Thats why they are locked out.

The NHLPA is out of a job. They need to get it back. The owners dont have to do anything. IN fact, they should simply get replacement players , start a new union, and keep drafting and permanently ban the current players unless they are willing to leave the NHLPA and join the new union.


Exactly, except for the league starting union. I think the owners could "suggest" a union perhaps.

Bettman gave too much by offering 50/50. He should have offered 60/40 and stuck to it.

Im all for replacement players. Let's get this going Bettman.
  • 0

#67 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,853 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 07:37 PM

I'll ask this again: Where are the replacement players coming from?

No vague answers like 'there are thousands of potential players'. Specific suggestions.

Keep in mind the AHL, ECHL and CHL players are all unionized as well.
  • 0

#68 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:37 PM

I actually think that the longer this goes on that the likely hood of him 'retiring' is going to increase. There must be a lot of owners who are unhappy with what has gone on here.

Bettman has played things rather poorly this last few weeks and my guess is that the players are willing to not play for a whole year and perhaps even longer just to not give Bettman the victory he wants. Bettman has i think backed himself into a corner and this could really be the beginning of his demise.
  • 1

#69 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:48 AM

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

i feel like it doesn't matter who's in charge as long as 8 owners are speaking for the whole pack the idea of a nhl season this year is very slim


You seem stuck on the 8 owner deal. That only applies to an offer from the NHLPA that Bettman declines outright. If 23 of the 30 owners agree to an offer Bettman has said no to they overrule him. In any other case a standard majority is sufficient.

You don't think Bettman is fully aware of what the majority of owners want out of this negotiation? He's not going to call the owners in to peruse every offer the NHLPA makes. An offer will have to be in the ballpark of what the owners are looking for before Bettman will take it to them. Really that 8 owners is just a safeguard that if the owners decide to crumble to the NHLPA it takes a 75% vote to do so.
  • 0
Posted Image

#70 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:55 AM

I actually think that the longer this goes on that the likely hood of him 'retiring' is going to increase. There must be a lot of owners who are unhappy with what has gone on here.

Bettman has played things rather poorly this last few weeks and my guess is that the players are willing to not play for a whole year and perhaps even longer just to not give Bettman the victory he wants. Bettman has i think backed himself into a corner and this could really be the beginning of his demise.


If Bettman gets what the owners want why would they get rid of him? Why would they be angry with him for doing what they wanted? Bettman has only backed himself into the corner the owners have created for him. He doesn't run things as he sees fit. He does what the majority of owners want him to do.
  • 0
Posted Image

#71 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:13 AM

I'll ask this again: Where are the replacement players coming from?

No vague answers like 'there are thousands of potential players'. Specific suggestions.

Keep in mind the AHL, ECHL and CHL players are all unionized as well.


*raises hand* ::D
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#72 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,165 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:38 AM

You seem stuck on the 8 owner deal. That only applies to an offer from the NHLPA that Bettman declines outright. If 23 of the 30 owners agree to an offer Bettman has said no to they overrule him. In any other case a standard majority is sufficient.

You don't think Bettman is fully aware of what the majority of owners want out of this negotiation? He's not going to call the owners in to peruse every offer the NHLPA makes. An offer will have to be in the ballpark of what the owners are looking for before Bettman will take it to them. Really that 8 owners is just a safeguard that if the owners decide to crumble to the NHLPA it takes a 75% vote to do so.

I find the suggestion that division amongst ownership a likely resolution of this dispute highly unlikely. I think ownership is far more united than the NHLPA. In fact the players had better hope that is the case. I would think that if ownership did crumble the fallout would be severe for the NHL as a whole. It could mean a revised business plan that could undermine many franchises and not just the weak southern ones. Players should be asking themselves what this would mean to them. A gate driven revenue system? Fewer teams?
  • 0

#73 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:21 AM

I find the suggestion that division amongst ownership a likely resolution of this dispute highly unlikely. I think ownership is far more united than the NHLPA. In fact the players had better hope that is the case. I would think that if ownership did crumble the fallout would be severe for the NHL as a whole. It could mean a revised business plan that could undermine many franchises and not just the weak southern ones. Players should be asking themselves what this would mean to them. A gate driven revenue system? Fewer teams?


Believe me, I'm not suggesting the owners will crumble. I'm just explaining to Clutch that the 8 owners behind Bettman situation only applies to overruling Bettman discarding an NHLPA offer. Nothing else. He, and several others, seem rather obsessed with this whole "Bettman only needs 8 owners behind him" thing.
  • 0
Posted Image

#74 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,165 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:11 PM

Believe me, I'm not suggesting the owners will crumble. I'm just explaining to Clutch that the 8 owners behind Bettman situation only applies to overruling Bettman discarding an NHLPA offer. Nothing else. He, and several others, seem rather obsessed with this whole "Bettman only needs 8 owners behind him" thing.

Wasn't suggesting you were. I was speaking to the general thread thought line as you were.
  • 0

#75 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:25 PM

If Bettman gets what the owners want why would they get rid of him? Why would they be angry with him for doing what they wanted? Bettman has only backed himself into the corner the owners have created for him. He doesn't run things as he sees fit. He does what the majority of owners want him to do.



Bettman is not an empty vessel that channels the wishes of the owners through him. He is put in charge of the business and is for the most part given a free hand to run it. As long as things go well he is left alone.

What is more the owners are more of a collection of people with both similar and conflicting interests rather than some well run unified board room. What this means is that there is great potential for people to manipulate processes and so forth. All of this is evident in the fact that a number of owners have indicated that they have no idea what is going on.

I would suggest that teams like the Nucks are probably very unhappy with Bettman and his negotiating crew. They are a well managed team and a good money making one. What is coming out of this for them is simply loss of revenue and an aggravated fan base. This latter will result in people buying less or none nuck products for the short term.

Edited by samurai, 30 October 2012 - 08:26 PM.

  • 0

#76 nowhereman

nowhereman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 06

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

Bettman has transformed a miilion dollar business into a billion dollar business. Why the hell would the owners fire him?

At the begining of the lockout, I thought Bettman was to blame. Mob-mentality, I guess. But after seeing everything unflold and educating myself far more thoroughly on the whole process, I'm less prone to point the finger at Bettman. I think the Fehr brothers should shoulder most of the blame for this mess. The players knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, when they fired Kelly and hired Fehr, and now we're in for a long winter.
  • 0
Posted Image

#77 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,998 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:03 PM

What kind of an idiot would fire the person who grew their business from $400 million to $3.3billion??


Let me turn this around. Maybe someone with better business and marketing sense could make the league have larger revenue.
Look at the money the OWNERS are losing in a crap market of Phoenix. Take Gary's ego out of the equation the team would be in Ontario right now and the league owners wouldn't be out money. He also signs with NBC a network that cuts off playoff games to show horse racing. HORSE RACING!!!! No...having ESPN as a partner wouldn't help the NHL's image at all. It's only on every basic TV package in the US. Even being on ESPN2 would be a plus.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#78 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:36 AM

Let me turn this around. Maybe someone with better business and marketing sense could make the league have larger revenue.
Look at the money the OWNERS are losing in a crap market of Phoenix. Take Gary's ego out of the equation the team would be in Ontario right now and the league owners wouldn't be out money. He also signs with NBC a network that cuts off playoff games to show horse racing. HORSE RACING!!!! No...having ESPN as a partner wouldn't help the NHL's image at all. It's only on every basic TV package in the US. Even being on ESPN2 would be a plus.


Not just any horse race there. Just the biggest one of the year. It was in the contract that they do the pre-race show in it's entirety. NBC had to switch or leave themselves open to a lawsuit. Contracts are contracts.

Adding a team in Ontario doesn't exactly help the mandate the owners gave Bettman when he was hired. And ESPN dropped hockey because bowling was drawing better ratings. How does adding a Canadian team help convince ESPN to take hockey back on? Until hockey is more popular in the US ESPN won't be carrying it. Which is why Bettmans main mandate from the owners was to expand the game in the US. In other words, develop a fan base in non-traditional markets to make the game more national.
  • 0
Posted Image

#79 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:27 AM

Bettman is not an empty vessel that channels the wishes of the owners through him. He is put in charge of the business and is for the most part given a free hand to run it. As long as things go well he is left alone.

What is more the owners are more of a collection of people with both similar and conflicting interests rather than some well run unified board room. What this means is that there is great potential for people to manipulate processes and so forth. All of this is evident in the fact that a number of owners have indicated that they have no idea what is going on.

I would suggest that teams like the Nucks are probably very unhappy with Bettman and his negotiating crew. They are a well managed team and a good money making one. What is coming out of this for them is simply loss of revenue and an aggravated fan base. This latter will result in people buying less or none nuck products for the short term.


Bettman, like anybody else in management, is given goals to achieve. He doesn't simply do as he pleases. That is how managers get fired. As it's a majority rules league. As long as Bettman pleases the majority he will have a job.

Are all the owners on the same page? Unlikely. The money owners likely don't want the lockout, but they also know what's best for the league as a whole.

I'd wager Acquilini is quite happy with Bettmans performance. It's more likely the money losing owners he's not particularly happy with.
  • 0
Posted Image

#80 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

Bettman, like anybody else in management, is given goals to achieve. He doesn't simply do as he pleases. That is how managers get fired. As it's a majority rules league. As long as Bettman pleases the majority he will have a job.

Are all the owners on the same page? Unlikely. The money owners likely don't want the lockout, but they also know what's best for the league as a whole.

I'd wager Acquilini is quite happy with Bettmans performance. It's more likely the money losing owners he's not particularly happy with.



Baggins I can tell you have never worked in a large organization nor studied management/business. The only goal as you call it (it's more like a mandate) is for Bettman to grow profits and keep the league healthy. He isn't micro managed by the hodge podge of owners.

Edited by samurai, 31 October 2012 - 05:49 PM.

  • 0

#81 ba;;isticsports

ba;;isticsports

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:06 PM

Maybe if Bettman pulls this stunt tonight,
He would be canned


  • 0

#82 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:13 AM

Baggins I can tell you have never worked in a large organization nor studied management/business. The only goal as you call it (it's more like a mandate) is for Bettman to grow profits and keep the league healthy. He isn't micro managed by the hodge podge of owners.


And I can tell you haven't paid much attention. How many times have I mentioned the "mandate" given Bettman when he was hired? Which was to EXPAND THE MARKET and REGAIN A NATIONAL US TV DEAL. If you've studied business maybe you understand what "expand the market" means. Now, isn't a "mandate" basically the same as "goals"? Don't they both have a set level of achievement attached? Perhaps you should focus more on the meat of the subject instead of nitpicking the terminology.

Do you honestly think Bettman has gone into these negotiations without a clear "mandate" or set of "goals" from management? You do have it right that Bettman isn't micromanaged when it comes to the daily running of the league. But if you think he's deciding something as important as the CBA without a clear agenda from the owners you're higher than an east end crack whore.

Edited by Baggins, 01 November 2012 - 04:24 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#83 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,504 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

Bettman has transformed a miilion dollar business into a billion dollar business. Why the hell would the owners fire him?

At the begining of the lockout, I thought Bettman was to blame. Mob-mentality, I guess. But after seeing everything unflold and educating myself far more thoroughly on the whole process, I'm less prone to point the finger at Bettman. I think the Fehr brothers should shoulder most of the blame for this mess. The players knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, when they fired Kelly and hired Fehr, and now we're in for a long winter.

This lockout was coming where they players hired Fehr the reaper or not, simple fact is that there will never be labour peace as long as Bettman is involved, he has poisoned the well and destroyed any kind of working relationship with the players as well as destroyed the NHL's position in the eyes of the fans who are expected to pay for all of this. You can't have any kind of descent working relationship with someone you can't trust, and no one in his right mind would trust a pathological liar like Bettman, if he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside and look because I wouldn't believe him.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 01 November 2012 - 05:27 PM.

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

#84 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,322 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 01 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

And I can tell you haven't paid much attention. How many times have I mentioned the "mandate" given Bettman when he was hired? Which was to EXPAND THE MARKET and REGAIN A NATIONAL US TV DEAL. If you've studied business maybe you understand what "expand the market" means. Now, isn't a "mandate" basically the same as "goals"? Don't they both have a set level of achievement attached? Perhaps you should focus more on the meat of the subject instead of nitpicking the terminology.

Do you honestly think Bettman has gone into these negotiations without a clear "mandate" or set of "goals" from management? You do have it right that Bettman isn't micromanaged when it comes to the daily running of the league. But if you think he's deciding something as important as the CBA without a clear agenda from the owners you're higher than an east end crack whore.



With a hodge podge of owners with conflicting needs and wants you can't get a clear agenda if you are talking about very specific points. What you do get is general or basic agreement of what that agenda is - which in this case is we want at least a 50 50 split. The details are left up to Bettman and an appointed team to work out. This type of system is a must as I said with such a disparate group and what it does result in is the chief guy and his team having a massive amount influence over things. This of course was in response to your suggestion that Bettman does what he is told, which is not true at all. He gets played a bit but he also is the conductor of the orchestra.
  • 0

#85 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,504 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 03:53 AM

With a hodge podge of owners with conflicting needs and wants you can't get a clear agenda if you are talking about very specific points. What you do get is general or basic agreement of what that agenda is - which in this case is we want at least a 50 50 split. The details are left up to Bettman and an appointed team to work out. This type of system is a must as I said with such a disparate group and what it does result in is the chief guy and his team having a massive amount influence over things. This of course was in response to your suggestion that Bettman does what he is told, which is not true at all. He gets played a bit but he also is the conductor of the orchestra.


Captain of this pirate ship is a more appropriate analogy. He is paid to LEAD not be a puppet.
  • 0
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#86 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:14 AM

With a hodge podge of owners with conflicting needs and wants you can't get a clear agenda if you are talking about very specific points. What you do get is general or basic agreement of what that agenda is - which in this case is we want at least a 50 50 split. The details are left up to Bettman and an appointed team to work out. This type of system is a must as I said with such a disparate group and what it does result in is the chief guy and his team having a massive amount influence over things. This of course was in response to your suggestion that Bettman does what he is told, which is not true at all. He gets played a bit but he also is the conductor of the orchestra.


How he achieves what the owners want is up to him, but the ultimate mandate/goals are set out by the owners. All the major decisions are still made by the majority rule. This isn't to say Bettman doesn't have input, just that ultimately all the major decisions are from the owners. The owners vote on rule changes. The owners vote on a lockout. The owners vote on a new CBA.

Do you honestly believe Bettman goes into the CBA negotiations without a clue as to what the majority of owners want out of it? Believe me, there will be more than one item (50/50 split) on the agenda he's given. He'll also know what the priorities are. It's rather pointless going into negotiations without a solid picture of what the "hodgepodge" expects out of it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#87 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,165 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:02 AM

How he achieves what the owners want is up to him, but the ultimate mandate/goals are set out by the owners. All the major decisions are still made by the majority rule. This isn't to say Bettman doesn't have input, just that ultimately all the major decisions are from the owners. The owners vote on rule changes. The owners vote on a lockout. The owners vote on a new CBA.

Do you honestly believe Bettman goes into the CBA negotiations without a clue as to what the majority of owners want out of it? Believe me, there will be more than one item (50/50 split) on the agenda he's given. He'll also know what the priorities are. It's rather pointless going into negotiations without a solid picture of what the "hodgepodge" expects out of it.

Emotionalism rules the day for many on here that do not want to deal in the mundaine objectives of business. That is to much like work. Totally agree that Bettman has a clear understanding of ownership's objectives. For all those who think Bettman is the problem it is easier to think that than trying to understand what ownership's objectives are. Do people actually think that Bettman sits down at the table and wings it?
  • 0

#88 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,504 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:29 AM

Emotionalism rules the day for many on here that do not want to deal in the mundaine objectives of business. That is to much like work. Totally agree that Bettman has a clear understanding of ownership's objectives. For all those who think Bettman is the problem it is easier to think that than trying to understand what ownership's objectives are. Do people actually think that Bettman sits down at the table and wings it?

Bettman is the one who decides HOW he goes about achieving those objectives, he is also the visible face of the league so the public perception of the league is based on his attitude and integrity (or lack of). There is no hope of ever achieving labour peace with such an untrustworthy, arrogant and confrontational leader, time for the owners to step up and realize that Ken Dryden would be a much better face of the league and would achieve a lot more in terms of a working relationship with the players, that is the main thing the NHL needs, not a labour war at the end of every CBA.

Remember the old saying? You catch a lot more flies with Honey than you do with Vinegar.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 02 November 2012 - 09:35 AM.

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

#89 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:17 AM

Bettman is the one who decides HOW he goes about achieving those objectives, he is also the visible face of the league so the public perception of the league is based on his attitude and integrity (or lack of). There is no hope of ever achieving labour peace with such an untrustworthy, arrogant and confrontational leader, time for the owners to step up and realize that Ken Dryden would be a much better face of the league and would achieve a lot more in terms of a working relationship with the players, that is the main thing the NHL needs, not a labour war at the end of every CBA.

Remember the old saying? You catch a lot more flies with Honey than you do with Vinegar.


So you're saying Dryden would get the percentage the owners want because he has a better face? Or are you saying that the NHLPA would give in to what the owners want simply because Dryden is not Bettman?

Personally I think fans simply need to have somebody to blame and Bettman, being the face of the owners, makes him the easy target.

Btw, there isn't enough honey in the world to attract the flies you're trying to take something away from. I've seen it enough times over the years with unions. All too often they'll sacriifice their own members before giving something up.
  • 0
Posted Image

#90 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:04 PM

I find it amusing that there are people out there with the notion that Gary Bettman is doing a good job based on the growth of the NHL the last 2 decades. The sports markets in general have grown in spite of the incompetence of its commissioners. The players really have made and grown the game not old men in suits. Put it this way, if you were to inherit your parents house 20 years ago and lived it until now and the value of your home goes up 500 percent does that make you a good businessman or lucky to inherit a well oiled financial machine.

The best way to compare Gay Bettman's performance is to compare what has happened with the rest of the professional sports leagues. The NHL is way behind the NBA,MLB and the NFL when it comes to revenue and overall growth despite all the problems off the court/field. The NHL is lagging behind all these leagues for a reason, incompetent leadership. The owners have some to blame for this but the biggest mistake they made was to keep the most hated commish in the history of sports. The fans hate him and the players even more and probably some of the owners do as well but with the few of the owners like Jeremy Jacobs in Boston(gee I wonder why they won the cup) he is like a cockroach you can never get rid of.

The next 2 weeks should seal Gary Bettman's fate if there is no deal done by Thanksgiving and the season is lost and that might be the stake in the heart that finally kills the vampire known as Gary Bettman.
  • 1




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.