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

#91 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 11 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

Question should be what will it take Fehr brothers to be fired.
  • 1

#92 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

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.


My suspicions as well. The owners are expecting him to make a deal. His game of swapping revenue demands for contractual ones has essentially been one of zero movement. He's forced things into a stalemate, then not been smart enough to get them out. When your lockout has made you a billion dollars in salary money back without losing any games, you don't then go for 2 billion at the cost of a season. What a tosspot.
  • 0

#93 MikeGillis58

MikeGillis58

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,432 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:15 AM

The only thing we can do is pray for Bettman to retire. How old is he?
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#94 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

My suspicions as well. The owners are expecting him to make a deal. His game of swapping revenue demands for contractual ones has essentially been one of zero movement. He's forced things into a stalemate, then not been smart enough to get them out. When your lockout has made you a billion dollars in salary money back without losing any games, you don't then go for 2 billion at the cost of a season. What a tosspot.

You have well established your concept of negociation is concede to the NHLPA. I suggest that Bettman does not have the latitude you seem to think he has.
  • 0

#95 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:43 PM

You have well established your concept of negociation is concede to the NHLPA. I suggest that Bettman does not have the latitude you seem to think he has.


Taking a billion dollars from them (with the only requirement being that 100mil of it is used for revenue sharing) is conceding? I think you need to look up the definition of concession.

Edited by nateb123, 12 November 2012 - 12:44 PM.

  • 0

#96 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

Question should be what will it take Fehr brothers to be fired.

Based on what exactly? The Fehr bros have been hired on in the last 2 years with no history of the NHL work stoppages whatsoever. Gary Bettman no matter who he is worked with has a history of work stoppages so who is the bigger problem here, someone like the Donald Fehr who hasn't even taken a paycheck since the lockout began or a megalomaniacal commish who clearly has Napolean envy. Gary Bettman has always been the one constant for when things go wrong and instead of admitting this he continues to spin his BS on to other people.

I suggest you listen to Ian White's interview with the Detroit free press for what he says cannot be summed up any better.

http://espn.go.com/n...y-bettman-idiot
  • 0

#97 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

Based on what exactly? The Fehr bros have been hired on in the last 2 years with no history of the NHL work stoppages whatsoever. Gary Bettman no matter who he is worked with has a history of work stoppages so who is the bigger problem here, someone like the Donald Fehr who hasn't even taken a paycheck since the lockout began or a megalomaniacal commish who clearly has Napolean envy. Gary Bettman has always been the one constant for when things go wrong and instead of admitting this he continues to spin his BS on to other people.

I suggest you listen to Ian White's interview with the Detroit free press for what he says cannot be summed up any better.

http://espn.go.com/n...y-bettman-idiot


You forgot to mention the part where the Owner are the ones who own everything. The NHLPA owns nothing.

The NHLPA has no rights to anything and you keep trying to make it seem like its some kind of power struggle between two equal entities.

The NHL can lock out the NHLPA permanently, hire replacement players and then regain the best talent through the draft within 5 years.

The NHLPA will be dead a year of the league allowing the replacement players to form another union.

One day you kids are going to have to realize how the real world works. You cant just go work for someone then DEMAND to have equal power with the owners.
  • 1
Posted Image

#98 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:08 AM

Yes.
Teach the players/kids a lesson in real world reality.
Fire that union. Cause that's how things work in the real world - and then allow the replacement players to create a new one...
The NHL would still own the big silver chalice.
They'd still own these abstract entertainment entities - the identity and continuity may be fractured, but they'd still own the jerseys and logos, and five or ten years in the future, there may be a semblance of the on-ice product. Forget that identiy is what it's all based upon...people won't notice, they'll forget.

In the meantime, they could charge $16 a ticket in the strong markets, because that's how things work in the real world - where prices are determined by what people will actually pay for the generic replacement product - nevetheless, in the meantime, they could call the AHL the "NHL" and dress it up as if were.

The NHL in the spirit of inter-league parity, could compete with a gaggle of other professional hockey leagues that now rival the NHL as the world's best talent disperses across the globe - and see the same thing happen where young talent is concerned, as the next Ovechkin, Datsyuk, etc are drafted and sign in the KHL, the next generation of Sedins or Zetteberg in the SEL, etc. But that won't happen. Everyone knows there's no money in Switzerland, Sweden, etc. In the end, if you want to sell hockey, the real deal is in Arizona or the panhandle.

Owners could find other ways to compensate themselves for the Titanic losses, as they watch their franchise valuations which currenly sit at $7 or 8 billion plummet to fractions. Craigslist - for sale: the Columbus ReJackets... will consider a trade for a Major Indoor Soccer League franchise. The billion at stake breaking the PA was worth it.

The NHL could make due after their current sponsorship and broadcast deals fall into line with what arena football commands. The more than 8,000 fans that attend the average arena football game is actually not far off some current NHL teams....

The NHL would have the satisfaction, however, of generally having taught them powerless players a lesson - that is, unless something resembling the international nature of soccer were to develop - the reality of multiple professional leagues in various nations (the reality and infrastructure of which already exists, salivating at the possibility of "firing" the NHLPA) and possibility of an international "World Cup" of Hockey developing... I'd bet there wouldn't really be any interest though....Who would invest in that? The NHL enjoys.../ enjoyed a monopoly...
  • 2

#99 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

Yes.
Teach the players/kids a lesson in real world reality.
Fire that union. Cause that's how things work in the real world - and then allow the replacement players to create a new one...
The NHL would still own the big silver chalice.
They'd still own these abstract entertainment entities - the identity and continuity may be fractured, but they'd still own the jerseys and logos, and five or ten years in the future, there may be a semblance of the on-ice product. Forget that identiy is what it's all based upon...people won't notice, they'll forget.

In the meantime, they could charge $16 a ticket in the strong markets, because that's how things work in the real world - where prices are determined by what people will actually pay for the generic replacement product - nevetheless, in the meantime, they could call the AHL the "NHL" and dress it up as if were.

The NHL in the spirit of inter-league parity, could compete with a gaggle of other professional hockey leagues that now rival the NHL as the world's best talent disperses across the globe - and see the same thing happen where young talent is concerned, as the next Ovechkin, Datsyuk, etc are drafted and sign in the KHL, the next generation of Sedins or Zetteberg in the SEL, etc. But that won't happen. Everyone knows there's no money in Switzerland, Sweden, etc. In the end, if you want to sell hockey, the real deal is in Arizona or the panhandle.

Owners could find other ways to compensate themselves for the Titanic losses, as they watch their franchise valuations which currenly sit at $7 or 8 billion plummet to fractions. Craigslist - for sale: the Columbus ReJackets... will consider a trade for a Major Indoor Soccer League franchise. The billion at stake breaking the PA was worth it.

The NHL could make due after their current sponsorship and broadcast deals fall into line with what arena football commands. The more than 8,000 fans that attend the average arena football game is actually not far off some current NHL teams....

The NHL would have the satisfaction, however, of generally having taught them powerless players a lesson - that is, unless something resembling the international nature of soccer were to develop - the reality of multiple professional leagues in various nations (the reality and infrastructure of which already exists, salivating at the possibility of "firing" the NHLPA) and possibility of an international "World Cup" of Hockey developing... I'd bet there wouldn't really be any interest though....Who would invest in that? The NHL enjoys.../ enjoyed a monopoly...

Do you feel better now? :)
That scenario not likely for another 11 months. I personally will never stand for the Ruskies competing for Stanley!
  • 0

#100 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:42 AM

Yes.
Teach the players/kids a lesson in real world reality.
Fire that union. Cause that's how things work in the real world - and then allow the replacement players to create a new one...
The NHL would still own the big silver chalice.
They'd still own these abstract entertainment entities - the identity and continuity may be fractured, but they'd still own the jerseys and logos, and five or ten years in the future, there may be a semblance of the on-ice product. Forget that identiy is what it's all based upon...people won't notice, they'll forget.

In the meantime, they could charge $16 a ticket in the strong markets, because that's how things work in the real world - where prices are determined by what people will actually pay for the generic replacement product - nevetheless, in the meantime, they could call the AHL the "NHL" and dress it up as if were.

The NHL in the spirit of inter-league parity, could compete with a gaggle of other professional hockey leagues that now rival the NHL as the world's best talent disperses across the globe - and see the same thing happen where young talent is concerned, as the next Ovechkin, Datsyuk, etc are drafted and sign in the KHL, the next generation of Sedins or Zetteberg in the SEL, etc. But that won't happen. Everyone knows there's no money in Switzerland, Sweden, etc. In the end, if you want to sell hockey, the real deal is in Arizona or the panhandle.

Owners could find other ways to compensate themselves for the Titanic losses, as they watch their franchise valuations which currenly sit at $7 or 8 billion plummet to fractions. Craigslist - for sale: the Columbus ReJackets... will consider a trade for a Major Indoor Soccer League franchise. The billion at stake breaking the PA was worth it.

The NHL could make due after their current sponsorship and broadcast deals fall into line with what arena football commands. The more than 8,000 fans that attend the average arena football game is actually not far off some current NHL teams....

The NHL would have the satisfaction, however, of generally having taught them powerless players a lesson - that is, unless something resembling the international nature of soccer were to develop - the reality of multiple professional leagues in various nations (the reality and infrastructure of which already exists, salivating at the possibility of "firing" the NHLPA) and possibility of an international "World Cup" of Hockey developing... I'd bet there wouldn't really be any interest though....Who would invest in that? The NHL enjoys.../ enjoyed a monopoly...


Your whole post is based on predictions of the future that are not even remotely realistic.

The players get replaced all the time. The NHL would have all the world class talent replaced through the draft within 5 years .

The NHLPA has no league to run, no revenue to generate, and thus no players to sign up.

If the NHLPA players dont like it, they can go play elsewhere. I know for a fact many will start to break ranks within a year and return to the NHL and new players union.

All these Kyle Welwoods and Taylor Pyatts have no use for Fehr or bickering over the high end revenue. In fact, 90% of the players have no stake in the negotiations at all. Their salaries would never be affected .

You guys have a PHANTOM view that the NHLPA has power. That the NHL needs the union or would be somehow destroyed. That the players that currently play right now are the be all end all and it will never change.

That new players will gladly SIT OUT rather than be drafted and play in the NHL.

You are DELUDED.
  • 1
Posted Image

#101 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:18 AM

Your whole post is based on predictions of the future that are not even remotely realistic.

The players get replaced all the time. The NHL would have all the world class talent replaced through the draft within 5 years .

The NHLPA has no league to run, no revenue to generate, and thus no players to sign up.

If the NHLPA players dont like it, they can go play elsewhere. I know for a fact many will start to break ranks within a year and return to the NHL and new players union.

All these Kyle Welwoods and Taylor Pyatts have no use for Fehr or bickering over the high end revenue. In fact, 90% of the players have no stake in the negotiations at all. Their salaries would never be affected .

You guys have a PHANTOM view that the NHLPA has power. That the NHL needs the union or would be somehow destroyed. That the players that currently play right now are the be all end all and it will never change.

That new players will gladly SIT OUT rather than be drafted and play in the NHL.

You are DELUDED.


This sounds like the world according to Archie Bunker.
A league full of meatheads.
I know for a fact, that I know for a fact.
You guys... who? are? you? guys?
The NHL doesn't need the union - is not the point.
It's just not going to be able to get rid of it. Reality.
"Fire" the union. Realism? Delusion.

Edited by oldnews, 21 November 2012 - 12:20 AM.

  • 0

#102 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:31 AM

This sounds like the world according to Archie Bunker.
A league full of meatheads.
I know for a fact, that I know for a fact.
You guys... who? are? you? guys?
The NHL doesn't need the union - is not the point.
It's just not going to be able to get rid of it. Reality.
"Fire" the union. Realism? Delusion.

Worse comes to worse and you might be surprised how many 'Archie Bunkers' come to the fore if this dispute goes into next fall. If DB is writing off the union to cavalierly then your defence of the union can be questioned as well. Decertifying a union has been done before with members who make far less than NHL players. Go into next fall with no agreement and see how many players jump. Time has no forgiveness and some players will be looking at a 2nd season of lost income. The right or wrong of it makes less sense in that light.
  • 0

#103 brenbowa

brenbowa

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:19 AM

*
POPULAR

You forgot to mention the part where the Owner are the ones who own everything. The NHLPA owns nothing.

The NHLPA has no rights to anything and you keep trying to make it seem like its some kind of power struggle between two equal entities.

The NHL can lock out the NHLPA permanently, hire replacement players and then regain the best talent through the draft within 5 years.

The NHLPA will be dead a year of the league allowing the replacement players to form another union.

One day you kids are going to have to realize how the real world works. You cant just go work for someone then DEMAND to have equal power with the owners.

One day son, it is you that will have to understand that the owners may own "everything" as you put it but the value of the teams are because of the players. If you take them away the value of these 300 hundred million dollar franchises will be nothing but a small fraction of that. I was never great at math but what is 100 percent of nothing. The NHL is a gate driven league, do you really believe that you will be able to charge 300 dollars per seat in Vancouver to rookies and replacement players? The NHL has repeatedly tried to bust the NHLPA especially in 2005 only to galvanize and strengthen it now. Also do you think the future players assuming they are NHL ready in the next 5 years which the majority of them won't be, do you think if the NHL treated its previous union there will be a rush to join the new NHL.

Okay lets play out you're scenario and the NHL locks out the players for 5 years. There will be an opportunity for a new league lets call it the WHA. The new owners will have the first dibs on the best talent available all the while the NHL waits and hires the best beer leaguers and junior and college dropouts to play for them. While the old NHLers will be making decent money with the new league and in Europe, the NHL teams will be going bankrupt and will be falling like dominos one at a time until there is nothing left. The NFL in 1987 tried replacement players and that failed miserably just like the replacement officials this year. That sounds like a great plan for perhaps you should mention that to Bettman for he has done everything else stupid so this is about the only one he hasn't tried yet.

I can understand if the players were getting greedy and DEMANDING everything but they are just asking to keep the contracts they signed in good faith. The owners and Bettman are doing the demanding and dictating which last I checked is not a good way to negotiate if you are not willing to compromise. I am pretty sure that most if not all of you out there working at a successful business making millions every year and your boss asks can you take a 20 percent pay cut because they mismanaged the company resources and spent millions on a couple of employees that didn't pan out. How would you feel, would you quietly accept this and carry on as if nothing has happened or would you stand up for yourself. If you would take the pay cut and take away your bargaining rights and you are okay with that than please give me your name and number for I would love to hire the suckers that are born every minute.

If a company is well run and bosses were fair to their employees than there wouldn't be a need for a union but this isn't a perfect world. You have a boss that everyone hates who doesn't understand the game and isn't rational when it comes to making decisions. Lets say you working at a saw mill or a trucking company would you shutdown your money making business unless you absolutely had to. There is no need to lockout the players for they can continue to negotiate while playing right now. Bettman says that he doesn't want to have a strike in the middle of the season like in 1992 so you can make the PA sign an agreement that there won't be one otherwise they would be sued back to the stone age, problem solved. If the other argument is that there is a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed with the CBA like Bettman claims than who's fault is that. The owners drew up the CBA making it idiot proof and the morons found a way to screw it up. For the last time the problem is not players salaries that is just Bettman spinning trying to avoid having to blame himself for his own incompetence. The problem is that there are too many teams in bad markets that Bettman miscalculated on being successful. The only way to save this is to fire the person who did this and move or contract the teams which are the biggest failures.

The season is on the verge of collapse and when it goes the NBC deal will go with it and so will Bettman's career.
  • 6

#104 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,424 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:34 AM

A major revolt by the owners that they decide they've had enough.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#105 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:54 AM

Worse comes to worse and you might be surprised how many 'Archie Bunkers' come to the fore if this dispute goes into next fall. If DB is writing off the union to cavalierly then your defence of the union can be questioned as well. Decertifying a union has been done before with members who make far less than NHL players. Go into next fall with no agreement and see how many players jump. Time has no forgiveness and some players will be looking at a 2nd season of lost income. The right or wrong of it makes less sense in that light.


The owners "unity" won't last any longer than the players - the cornerstone franchises are losing the most, and have the least interest in this lockout.
  • 0

#106 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:11 AM

The owners "unity" won't last any longer than the players - the cornerstone franchises are losing the most, and have the least interest in this lockout.

No doubt that the dollars and cents of an agreement appeal to the business side more than the emotionalism of the player and fan. Not knowing the detail of the NHL business plan and the projections they might have makes this all guess work. Perhaps they have numbers which make sense to them and thusly their solidarity might be stronger than you suppose.

Cornerstone franchises are losing more than their poorer members but over the long term if they reduce the players share of revenue they will not have to support their poorer members as much. Considering there are 5 to 6 very weak franchises it might strengthen their resolve rather than weaken it as you suggest.
  • 0

#107 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,058 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:51 PM

It only takes eight owners to veto any deal. I think it's obvious right now that there's a group of small-market teams in America that don't make money or make very little under the current system, that definitely don't make money until after the new year because of college football, and those are the people Bettman is representing right now (he has no choice, it's in his job description, but still...)

I don't think Bettman can survive another cancelled season. MLSE, the Habs, Comcast and Dolan and all those bigshots are losing millions. The sponsors are losing millions and NBCSN, who tied everything to the NHL continuing to grow in popularity, are taking a massive haircut and may never recover. The owners are fools to take on Fehr like this, he's not the typical NHLPA incompetent ignoramus, he's a real heavy hitter and I still don't feel like the owners understand who and what they're up against here. I think that the union should make one of their goals here to take down Bettman, it's well past time he was sent packing. We need someone who understands the game in that position.
  • 1

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#108 Mustapha

Mustapha

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

The season is on the verge of collapse and when it goes the NBC deal will go with it and so will Bettman's career.


I doubt that. Ed Snider ultimately makes that decision, and considering he also owns the Flyers, he is not going to shoot himself in the foot.


The owners want this union broken, and are willing to take short term losses for long term gain.

Players are commodities, and although they are the reason fans go to the game, they are the product, and that's it.
  • 0
Posted Image

What are you talking about? The Flames are one of the teams that gets good value contracts


#109 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

It only takes eight owners to veto any deal. I think it's obvious right now that there's a group of small-market teams in America that don't make money or make very little under the current system, that definitely don't make money until after the new year because of college football, and those are the people Bettman is representing right now (he has no choice, it's in his job description, but still...)

I don't think Bettman can survive another cancelled season. MLSE, the Habs, Comcast and Dolan and all those bigshots are losing millions. The sponsors are losing millions and NBCSN, who tied everything to the NHL continuing to grow in popularity, are taking a massive haircut and may never recover. The owners are fools to take on Fehr like this, he's not the typical NHLPA incompetent ignoramus, he's a real heavy hitter and I still don't feel like the owners understand who and what they're up against here. I think that the union should make one of their goals here to take down Bettman, it's well past time he was sent packing. We need someone who understands the game in that position.

Do you seriously think the owners entered this dispute without realizing the potential losses? That is like saying that 2004 never happened! I can agree that it might cost Bettman his job but only if it was him that sold the lockout. Neither of us know that to be true. It could easily be a group of owners. Many here write this lockout as a simple exercise in ownership deciding to screw their players. That could be true but I suspect a dollars and cents explanation in relationship to their future development plans within a business plan.

You suggested that ownership didn't know who they were taking on with the Fehr brothers. Again I don't know how you could conclude that. There are 8 NBA/NHL cross relationships. I suspect ownership knows the Fehr brothers very well.
  • 0

#110 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:03 AM

One day son, it is you that will have to understand that the owners may own "everything" as you put it but the value of the teams are because of the players. If you take them away the value of these 300 hundred million dollar franchises will be nothing but a small fraction of that. I was never great at math but what is 100 percent of nothing. The NHL is a gate driven league, do you really believe that you will be able to charge 300 dollars per seat in Vancouver to rookies and replacement players? The NHL has repeatedly tried to bust the NHLPA especially in 2005 only to galvanize and strengthen it now. Also do you think the future players assuming they are NHL ready in the next 5 years which the majority of them won't be, do you think if the NHL treated its previous union there will be a rush to join the new NHL.

Okay lets play out you're scenario and the NHL locks out the players for 5 years. There will be an opportunity for a new league lets call it the WHA. The new owners will have the first dibs on the best talent available all the while the NHL waits and hires the best beer leaguers and junior and college dropouts to play for them. While the old NHLers will be making decent money with the new league and in Europe, the NHL teams will be going bankrupt and will be falling like dominos one at a time until there is nothing left. The NFL in 1987 tried replacement players and that failed miserably just like the replacement officials this year. That sounds like a great plan for perhaps you should mention that to Bettman for he has done everything else stupid so this is about the only one he hasn't tried yet.

I can understand if the players were getting greedy and DEMANDING everything but they are just asking to keep the contracts they signed in good faith. The owners and Bettman are doing the demanding and dictating which last I checked is not a good way to negotiate if you are not willing to compromise. I am pretty sure that most if not all of you out there working at a successful business making millions every year and your boss asks can you take a 20 percent pay cut because they mismanaged the company resources and spent millions on a couple of employees that didn't pan out. How would you feel, would you quietly accept this and carry on as if nothing has happened or would you stand up for yourself. If you would take the pay cut and take away your bargaining rights and you are okay with that than please give me your name and number for I would love to hire the suckers that are born every minute.

If a company is well run and bosses were fair to their employees than there wouldn't be a need for a union but this isn't a perfect world. You have a boss that everyone hates who doesn't understand the game and isn't rational when it comes to making decisions. Lets say you working at a saw mill or a trucking company would you shutdown your money making business unless you absolutely had to. There is no need to lockout the players for they can continue to negotiate while playing right now. Bettman says that he doesn't want to have a strike in the middle of the season like in 1992 so you can make the PA sign an agreement that there won't be one otherwise they would be sued back to the stone age, problem solved. If the other argument is that there is a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed with the CBA like Bettman claims than who's fault is that. The owners drew up the CBA making it idiot proof and the morons found a way to screw it up. For the last time the problem is not players salaries that is just Bettman spinning trying to avoid having to blame himself for his own incompetence. The problem is that there are too many teams in bad markets that Bettman miscalculated on being successful. The only way to save this is to fire the person who did this and move or contract the teams which are the biggest failures.

The season is on the verge of collapse and when it goes the NBC deal will go with it and so will Bettman's career.

Well said. I agree with just about everything that you mentioned except for one thing. The 10 year contract with NBC will just be carried over until hockey starts up again. Though I guess it is possible if there is little to no interest and the ratings are poor they can change the programming at any time just ask Conan Obrien. I also believe the sponsors are getting antsy and will start pulling their money out if there is no deal soon.

What surprises me most is how many Gary Bettman apologists there are out there. Its almost like the NHL is paying people to troll the boards and defend his policies. But if you look at the facts objectively for anyone who tries to defend Gary Bettman really doesn't have a leg to stand on so either people have lost their rationality or maybe people are as dumb as Gary Bettman thinks the fans are and will support and return no matter how much damage he has done to the game. It will be interesting to see if the owners will truly want to save the season with these mediators or it is just for show until they can get their true objective which is trying to bust the NHLPA.
  • 1

#111 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:38 AM

Well said. I agree with just about everything that you mentioned except for one thing. The 10 year contract with NBC will just be carried over until hockey starts up again. Though I guess it is possible if there is little to no interest and the ratings are poor they can change the programming at any time just ask Conan Obrien. I also believe the sponsors are getting antsy and will start pulling their money out if there is no deal soon.

What surprises me most is how many Gary Bettman apologists there are out there. Its almost like the NHL is paying people to troll the boards and defend his policies. But if you look at the facts objectively for anyone who tries to defend Gary Bettman really doesn't have a leg to stand on so either people have lost their rationality or maybe people are as dumb as Gary Bettman thinks the fans are and will support and return no matter how much damage he has done to the game. It will be interesting to see if the owners will truly want to save the season with these mediators or it is just for show until they can get their true objective which is trying to bust the NHLPA.

I think many people question the 'deathlock' that some fans, such as yourself, seem to think that Bettman has over the direction of negociations and even the development plans of the NHL. IMO he is the front man for ownership and is paid to take the flack for the direction that is set by ownership. I have little doubt that if he did not represent the concensus of ownership opinion he would be gone. He is an easy target for those who want a simple solution to this lockout. Many fans and players think that Bettman answers to them or the hockey grail when the reality is he answers to ownership. Does it really make any dif if Bettman is infront of the cameras or Bill Daley?

This dispute will be settled when it is in the economic interest of ownership to settle. Firing Bettman might give fans and players some hope but that is appearances only. That said Bettman might leave as part of a settlement if ownership backs off established demands. I would view that as Bettman being sacrificed rather than ownership caving to demands that he leave.
  • 0

#112 Canuckfan1968

Canuckfan1968

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 949 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 05

Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

I blame the union and the NHLPA not the NHL. Hell I make 35k a year if I could play hockey and make 250k a year i would be happy and most of these guys make alot more then that so I really dont know why they bitch so much about money. When your kid playing hockey you learn to play for fun and do your best, but as adults they are sending the wrong message that hockey is about greed, when it really should be about enjoying what you do and playing for fun and to win the ultimate prize. Talk about people getting their priorities wrong.

Edited by Canuckfan1968, 28 November 2012 - 10:51 AM.

  • 0

#113 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,400 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:00 PM

As much as I hate Bettman he didn't cause the lockout. Bettman represents the owners, he just does what they want. If you want a real villain look at Jeremy Jacobs, the Bruins owner. Of course there is plenty of greed from many people on both sides, but of the owners, from what I've heard Jacobs is the biggest bully.
  • 0

#114 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

As much as I hate Bettman he didn't cause the lockout. Bettman represents the owners, he just does what they want. If you want a real villain look at Jeremy Jacobs, the Bruins owner. Of course there is plenty of greed from many people on both sides, but of the owners, from what I've heard Jacobs is the biggest bully.

There are some pretty nasty rumours about the Jacobs family and where their money comes from.
  • 0

#115 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:03 PM

I think many people question the 'deathlock' that some fans, such as yourself, seem to think that Bettman has over the direction of negociations and even the development plans of the NHL. IMO he is the front man for ownership and is paid to take the flack for the direction that is set by ownership. I have little doubt that if he did not represent the concensus of ownership opinion he would be gone. He is an easy target for those who want a simple solution to this lockout. Many fans and players think that Bettman answers to them or the hockey grail when the reality is he answers to ownership. Does it really make any dif if Bettman is infront of the cameras or Bill Daley?


This dispute will be settled when it is in the economic interest of ownership to settle. Firing Bettman might give fans and players some hope but that is appearances only. That said Bettman might leave as part of a settlement if ownership backs off established demands. I would view that as Bettman being sacrificed rather than ownership caving to demands that he leave.


I think Bettman is a little more than a mere puppet for NHL ownership. How many puppets can issue a gag-order against their employers with the threat of hefty fines if they step out of line? Also this insanity of him only needing 8 of 30 owners on his side when it comes to deciding on a new CBA, who's idea was that?
Bettman has clearly been given too much power in his position, how I dont know? I wonder though if he only needed the support of 8 owners to get that contract extension.of his?
  • 0

#116 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:32 PM

I blame the union and the NHLPA not the NHL. Hell I make 35k a year if I could play hockey and make 250k a year i would be happy and most of these guys make alot more then that so I really dont know why they bitch so much about money. When your kid playing hockey you learn to play for fun and do your best, but as adults they are sending the wrong message that hockey is about greed, when it really should be about enjoying what you do and playing for fun and to win the ultimate prize. Talk about people getting their priorities wrong.


NHL hockey players are accustomed to making a very high wage just like athletes in other pro sports. Yes it's a game and yes it's fun, but (some of) the owners make a sh**load of money and the product (the players) need to be paid accordingly.
If your boss was making a billion dollars a year and his business was largely/somewhat dependent on the service you provide, would you still be happy with your 35K per year? That wouldn't seem fair to me. Not only that, but if your boss was making record profits and subsequently demanded that you take a pay cut down to say 28.5K per year, how happy would you be with that?

I dont think the NHLPA has their priorities wrong, they have made concessions in this negotiation and Bettman just keeps pushing for more and more. Bettman already crushed the PA in 2005 and I think if it were not for that then maybe a deal would've been made on this CBA. Bettman got what he wanted last time which turned out to be what he didn't want, so he's obviously incompetent and who can really blame the players for not caving in again? If they do, that will just show Bettman and the owners that whenever a CBA expires they can simply throw a lockout and get whatever they want.
  • 0

#117 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

I think Bettman is a little more than a mere puppet for NHL ownership. How many puppets can issue a gag-order against their employers with the threat of hefty fines if they step out of line? Also this insanity of him only needing 8 of 30 owners on his side when it comes to deciding on a new CBA, who's idea was that?
Bettman has clearly been given too much power in his position, how I dont know? I wonder though if he only needed the support of 8 owners to get that contract extension.of his?

Take comfort in that thought process but I highly doubt that is the case. It is natural that the NHL owners would have the discipline to ensure 30 owners were not chirping their feelings to the media while negociating a new CBA. You seem to think that Bettman is some swami who has 30 owners buffaloed into obeying his direction. Again I highly doubt that to be the case. If the Forbes valuation of the 30 NHL teams is accurate you are suggesting $9 billion +/- of owner equity is being solely controlled and directed by Bettman. That doesn't happen in the real world. Accept the fact that the lack of a new CBA is more directly a result of ownership's demands than those of Mr. Bettman who is their employee.
  • 0

#118 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 29 November 2012 - 08:26 AM

Take comfort in that thought process but I highly doubt that is the case. It is natural that the NHL owners would have the discipline to ensure 30 owners were not chirping their feelings to the media while negociating a new CBA. You seem to think that Bettman is some swami who has 30 owners buffaloed into obeying his direction. Again I highly doubt that to be the case. If the Forbes valuation of the 30 NHL teams is accurate you are suggesting $9 billion +/- of owner equity is being solely controlled and directed by Bettman. That doesn't happen in the real world. Accept the fact that the lack of a new CBA is more directly a result of ownership's demands than those of Mr. Bettman who is their employee.


Maybe your'e right. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
  • 0

#119 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

inorder to get bettman fired the canucks would need to win the stanley cup. his brain would explode from this and thus, a replacement would be required.
  • 0

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

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


#120 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:18 AM

I think Bettman is a little more than a mere puppet for NHL ownership. How many puppets can issue a gag-order against their employers with the threat of hefty fines if they step out of line? Also this insanity of him only needing 8 of 30 owners on his side when it comes to deciding on a new CBA, who's idea was that?
Bettman has clearly been given too much power in his position, how I dont know? I wonder though if he only needed the support of 8 owners to get that contract extension.of his?


You don't think the gag order is from the owners themselves? One flaps his gums and they all look bad. That's more a case of the owners protecting themselves from each other.

The highlighted part only applies to a contract offer Bettman TURNS DOWN. It takes 23 out of 30 to overturn Bettman declining an offer from the NHLPA. The only real way that clause applies is if the owners want to cave as Bettman is in fact going after what the owners want. The owners put this wheel in motion and that clause just means it will take the vast majority of owners to agree to slam on the breaks. Everything other than that one scenario still requires a simple majority vote (16 owners). Which includes Bettman getting a raise or even keeping his job.

Bettman isn't Hitler invading and conquering owner after owner usurping their control. What control Bettman has was given to him by the owners. The guys that hired him and can fire him. The surest way for him to be fired is to not do what they want. The fact he was given a healthy raise and extension would indicate he's been doing exactly what the owners want.


Those that think Bettman simply does as he pleases are delusional. Nobody keeps their job long with that game plan.
  • 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.