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

#121 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:48 AM

The age disparity on this board dictates the mindset and lens in which they process the information. Ergo they cannot see anything from the owners point of view as almost all of them have never owned their own business before. They are still at the employee stage of seeing everything.
  • 0
Posted Image

#122 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,170 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:51 AM

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.

Well put!

The Bettman conspiracy theorists should check out the list of owners attending the meeting with players. 4 of the 6 owners are not from the negociating committee. This is an owner directed dispute.
  • 0

#123 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:53 PM

Well put!

The Bettman conspiracy theorists should check out the list of owners attending the meeting with players. 4 of the 6 owners are not from the negociating committee. This is an owner directed dispute.


Again, its because they dont WANT to know the truth. They think the owners are some non real entities whose sole existence is to provide us with NHL hockey on demand , most likely free on tv in our local markets .

I really think the owners already made a reasonable deal two months ago.

The question I want to know is........ how many of those who hate Bettman even were ALIVE or remember before he was our first commis........

Back when we had 'presidents' ? I wonder how much they would have HATED them.
  • 0
Posted Image

#124 skolozsy2

skolozsy2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:42 AM

Again, its because they dont WANT to know the truth. They think the owners are some non real entities whose sole existence is to provide us with NHL hockey on demand , most likely free on tv in our local markets .

I really think the owners already made a reasonable deal two months ago.

The question I want to know is........ how many of those who hate Bettman even were ALIVE or remember before he was our first commis........

Back when we had 'presidents' ? I wonder how much they would have HATED them.


Agreed, it seems that some people think the NHL was just a "sunny-day scenario" before Bettman became commish. Everything was great....players, fans, and owners were all just happy as a lark, everyone made millions and nothing was ever unfair. The league was perfect.

That "era" never existed.....and never will.




  • 0

#125 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,513 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:38 AM

Again, its because they dont WANT to know the truth. They think the owners are some non real entities whose sole existence is to provide us with NHL hockey on demand , most likely free on tv in our local markets .

I really think the owners already made a reasonable deal two months ago.

The question I want to know is........ how many of those who hate Bettman even were ALIVE or remember before he was our first commis........

Back when we had 'presidents' ? I wonder how much they would have HATED them.

I remember the NHL before Little Napoleon, was a much better time. Goals and assists mattered more than dollars and cents, you could follow the puck because the boards were white, not having every square inch cluttered with advertising, it was the NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, not the CORPORATE AMERICA HOCKEY LEAGUE, the owners got involved because they loved the game and wanted to run a team, not because they saw an asset they could flip, winning on the ice mattered more than having a bigger bank account than the other owners, the president wasn't a spotlight seeker like Her Bettman, like a good ref, a good president should be quietly working in the background and be nearly invisible to the general public. I didn't hear much from Clarence Campbell until a major discipline case came up, Zeigler started the slide that Bettman has done his best to accelerate.
  • 1
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#126 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,170 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:34 PM

I remember the NHL before Little Napoleon, was a much better time. Goals and assists mattered more than dollars and cents, you could follow the puck because the boards were white, not having every square inch cluttered with advertising, it was the NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, not the CORPORATE AMERICA HOCKEY LEAGUE, the owners got involved because they loved the game and wanted to run a team, not because they saw an asset they could flip, winning on the ice mattered more than having a bigger bank account than the other owners, the president wasn't a spotlight seeker like Her Bettman, like a good ref, a good president should be quietly working in the background and be nearly invisible to the general public. I didn't hear much from Clarence Campbell until a major discipline case came up, Zeigler started the slide that Bettman has done his best to accelerate.

It was Bettman who made sure the Flames and Oilers were able to stay in Canada. It was Ziegler who tolerated Eagleson and Campbell who made sure Richard didn't get the scoring championship.
  • 0

#127 skolozsy2

skolozsy2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:59 PM

I remember the NHL before Little Napoleon, was a much better time. Goals and assists mattered more than dollars and cents, you could follow the puck because the boards were white, not having every square inch cluttered with advertising, it was the NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, not the CORPORATE AMERICA HOCKEY LEAGUE, the owners got involved because they loved the game and wanted to run a team, not because they saw an asset they could flip, winning on the ice mattered more than having a bigger bank account than the other owners, the president wasn't a spotlight seeker like Her Bettman, like a good ref, a good president should be quietly working in the background and be nearly invisible to the general public. I didn't hear much from Clarence Campbell until a major discipline case came up, Zeigler started the slide that Bettman has done his best to accelerate.


There is advertising on the boards at my local rink too, as well as on the boards of all the rinks my teams play at. Aint cause my organization is greedy...or because of Bettman. Its because construction costs are so astronomical, they need any revenue stream they can generate to be sustainable.

You remember owners only caring about winning. I remember players bolting for the WHA for bigger paydays. I remember Bill Wirtz giving the Islanders a home playoff game because he could fit more seats in Chicago Stadium for a Led Zeppelin concert. Yeah...he wanted win! I remember there were relocations, bankrupt, and defunct teams well before Bettman.

I remember Vancouver not getting a team, and California getting two of them first expansion. What do you think this message board would have looked like that day? Still were a big fan of the presidents?

I remember hearing "bull----" chants in 80's at the refs. I remember Koharski being called a fat pig and told to eat a jelly donut. I remember Roger's white flag. I remember brawls and goonery and poorly reffed games forever.

I remember the fans ALWAYS whining about SOMETHING. Don't you remember?
  • 2

#128 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

Agreed, it seems that some people think the NHL was just a "sunny-day scenario" before Bettman became commish. Everything was great....players, fans, and owners were all just happy as a lark, everyone made millions and nothing was ever unfair. The league was perfect.

That "era" never existed.....and never will.


I know. Before bettman, the players made dog crap, there was only 21 teams and 16 made the playoffs. The UFA age was like 35 years old.

I think the game is better in every facet now. I think we need to deal with goaltending equipment and player safety but I am happy with the game. I would also biotch slap the tools who do the video reviews in Toronto.

I remember the NHL before Little Napoleon, was a much better time. Goals and assists mattered more than dollars and cents, you could follow the puck because the boards were white, not having every square inch cluttered with advertising, it was the NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, not the CORPORATE AMERICA HOCKEY LEAGUE, the owners got involved because they loved the game and wanted to run a team, not because they saw an asset they could flip, winning on the ice mattered more than having a bigger bank account than the other owners, the president wasn't a spotlight seeker like Her Bettman, like a good ref, a good president should be quietly working in the background and be nearly invisible to the general public. I didn't hear much from Clarence Campbell until a major discipline case came up, Zeigler started the slide that Bettman has done his best to accelerate.


I do agree that corporate advertising is plastered all over the rink, including the neutral zone now. I could do without it but then Dave Bolland wouldnt be making 3.6million per year.

I also agree that Campbell was a ghost but dont forget he had a 6 team league to deal with. By the time Ziegler got there he had to deal with a far more advanced media and 16 teams. I think he had to become more visible .

Bettman is pounded a lot but I still dont get why. As opposed to who? Someone else would do a different or better job being the owners puppet ? This is how the owners want the league run. We as fans should campaign them to change it if we feel it important.

I think there is a lot we as fans can ask for. Owners will change if we complain loud enough. We are the ones paying the bills.
  • 0
Posted Image

#129 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:21 PM

There is advertising on the boards at my local rink too, as well as on the boards of all the rinks my teams play at. Aint cause my organization is greedy...or because of Bettman. Its because construction costs are so astronomical, they need any revenue stream they can generate to be sustainable.

You remember owners only caring about winning. I remember players bolting for the WHA for bigger paydays. I remember Bill Wirtz giving the Islanders a home playoff game because he could fit more seats in Chicago Stadium for a Led Zeppelin concert. Yeah...he wanted win! I remember there were relocations, bankrupt, and defunct teams well before Bettman.

I remember Vancouver not getting a team, and California getting two of them first expansion. What do you think this message board would have looked like that day? Still were a big fan of the presidents?

I remember hearing "bull----" chants in 80's at the refs. I remember Koharski being called a fat pig and told to eat a jelly donut. I remember Roger's white flag. I remember brawls and goonery and poorly reffed games forever.

I remember the fans ALWAYS whining about SOMETHING. Don't you remember?


Good post.

+1
  • 0
Posted Image

#130 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,191 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

An affair. That seems to be a career killer. Apparently it's everyone's business what a man does with his prick.
  • 0
Posted Image

#131 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,170 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

There is advertising on the boards at my local rink too, as well as on the boards of all the rinks my teams play at. Aint cause my organization is greedy...or because of Bettman. Its because construction costs are so astronomical, they need any revenue stream they can generate to be sustainable.

You remember owners only caring about winning. I remember players bolting for the WHA for bigger paydays. I remember Bill Wirtz giving the Islanders a home playoff game because he could fit more seats in Chicago Stadium for a Led Zeppelin concert. Yeah...he wanted win! I remember there were relocations, bankrupt, and defunct teams well before Bettman.

I remember Vancouver not getting a team, and California getting two of them first expansion. What do you think this message board would have looked like that day? Still were a big fan of the presidents?

I remember hearing "bull----" chants in 80's at the refs. I remember Koharski being called a fat pig and told to eat a jelly donut. I remember Roger's white flag. I remember brawls and goonery and poorly reffed games forever.

I remember the fans ALWAYS whining about SOMETHING. Don't you remember?

+ 2 Nice job. Some of that hockey from the first expansion six was brutal. Campbell Conference! Ha!
  • 0

#132 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

He's not getting fired. he makes the owner's more and more money each year (for the most part) Why would they fire him.

The only way he will be fired is if the game goes back to an unstable era, which is probably impossible. They will feel a big hit from this lockout but the fans will go back eventually, some quicker than other's but they will get back to this point and continue growing eventually. And Gary will hold this position as the Comish till he get's too old to do so.

Then it will probably get handed over to Bill Daly, a huge change right? Not so much.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 09 December 2012 - 11:18 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#133 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

He's not getting fired. he makes the owner's more and more money each year (for the most part) Why would they fire him.

The only way he will be fired is if the game goes back to an unstable era, which is probably impossible. They will feel a big hit from this lockout but the fans will go back eventually, some quicker than other's but they will get back to this point and continue growing eventually. And Gary will hold this position as the Comish till he get's too old to do so.

Then it will probably get handed over to Bill Daly, a huge change right? Not so much.


The owners will always have a 'bettman' to do their bidding and run the league. Firing bettman does nothing. I think what you are suggesting is changing the power structure of the league.

You do this by getting the union into profit sharing / ownership with the league. The union could give up major salary concessions on the front end to become part owners.

This is a viable way, if you could get the owners to do it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#134 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

The owners will always have a 'bettman' to do their bidding and run the league. Firing bettman does nothing. I think what you are suggesting is changing the power structure of the league.

You do this by getting the union into profit sharing / ownership with the league. The union could give up major salary concessions on the front end to become part owners.

This is a viable way, if you could get the owners to do it.


I wasn't really suggesting anything, I think we both agree Bettman is really the puppet with the owner's pulling his strings, so odds are (aside from maybe some changes to the way the game is player) not alot different would happen with anyone else.

And I don't think the players will ever dip into an ownership 'role' I guess you would say, they have other things and they would have to a group in doing this, but really with the concessions they will be giving in this CBA, the league is pretty much taking there money to help out the stability of the league anyways. (Atleast that's what it better be used for).

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 11 December 2012 - 04:56 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#135 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,556 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:08 PM

Bettman will be fired whenever he quits doing the job that the owners want out of him. Which is to make them more money. Bettman is not the cause of all this, he only represents the owners. Even if Bettman wasn't comissioner, we may still have the same situation, because the owners would hire someone else that would do the same job. If I were to blame anyone for the lockout it would be Donald Fehr (he is more the leader of the group than Bettman is), as well as the hardline owners such as Jeremy Jacobs.
  • 0

#136 darkpuncher

darkpuncher

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:16 AM

Bettman will be fired whenever he quits doing the job that the owners want out of him. Which is to make them more money. Bettman is not the cause of all this, he only represents the owners. Even if Bettman wasn't comissioner, we may still have the same situation, because the owners would hire someone else that would do the same job. If I were to blame anyone for the lockout it would be Donald Fehr (he is more the leader of the group than Bettman is), as well as the hardline owners such as Jeremy Jacobs.

Do you honestly believe Gary Bettman will keep his job if there is another lockout for the entire year? The owners will be vilified and it will cost them huge business so they will need a scapegoat and that will be Gary Bettman. The only way the fans may comeback from the damage that another lost season will bring.

Also if Gary Bettman is not the cause of this like you say then why is he not negotiating instead of dictating an agenda. He obviously has no clue on how to negotiate or what the word even means. It is all about give and take and the owners haven't given on anything. The only thing you can argue the owners gave up was the 300 million (make whole) of the players own money with the contracts they signed in good faith. Donald Fehr has been patient and fair and willing to compromise on what is fair and right. The players have grown the game to record revenue not Gary Bettman and the players should be rewarded for this not taking a pay cut. The owners don't like long contracts (which they seem to sign when it is good for them) well then get rid of the salary cap and you won't have this problem anymore.

Lets not forget how the NHL last year and how Jeremy Jacobs and the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup. Chara nearly kills Max Pacioretty no suspension. McQuaid breaks the back of Mason Raymond, no suspension. The officials were obviously instructed not to call any penalties against the Bruins and they got away with murder (Marchand with Daniel) otherwise they would not have won the Cup. This happened the year before with the Blackhawks and they also got away with running Luongo. How could anyone possibly support a commissioner as corrupt and as incompetent as this? As long as Gary Bettman is running the league no Canadian team will ever win the Cup again which is unfair.

What has surprised me is how many people out there buy into Gary Bettman and his BS. All the guy does is lie, cheat and steal to keep his job and damages the game for the players and fans all for the greed and glorification of his ego. Let me ask people have you not watched hockey the last 20 years and seen how bad it has gotten since he arrived. The 70's and 80's were the golden age where the players and owners made their money (albeit not as much) and now it is only a select few owners. There were 7 out of 21 teams or one third of the leagues teams were from Canada which is what it should be. Instead you have at least a half dozen to a dozen teams that shouldn't even be there but Gary Bettman will always blame the players as opposed to looking in the mirror.
  • 2

#137 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,513 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:28 AM

Bettman will be fired whenever he quits doing the job that the owners want out of him. Which is to make them more money. Bettman is not the cause of all this, he only represents the owners. Even if Bettman wasn't comissioner, we may still have the same situation, because the owners would hire someone else that would do the same job. If I were to blame anyone for the lockout it would be Donald Fehr (he is more the leader of the group than Bettman is), as well as the hardline owners such as Jeremy Jacobs.

This is the problem, he isn't actually doing his job, his job isn't to be a puppet for the owners, his job is to protect the game from the owners, his job is to LEAD not follow, the owners job is to make money, the commissioner's job is to see it is done in a legal and ethical manner.



[the owners are discussing the commissioner's job with Judge Landis]
Judge Friend: Well we're in search of someone uh...
Charles Comiskey: We feel that we need a commissioner who will clean up baseball and give a new face to the sport. We're prepared to grant you certain powers...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Absolute powers
Charles Comiskey: Absolute powers?
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Won't work any other way. People won't believe it. Absolute powers
Charles Comiskey: Well we're prepared to give you a 5 year contract...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Lifetime contract
Judge Friend: Lifetime?
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: A man worried about his job is bound to play favorites. Now you gentlemen don't want that do you?
Charles Comiskey: Well a lifetime contract sounds a little...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: [slaps flyswatter down on the desk] I'm due back in the courtroom in 5 minutes gentlemen, let's talk salary.

Edited by Norman Clegg, 13 December 2012 - 06:29 AM.

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

#138 BenDrinkin

BenDrinkin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 07

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

I don't think he will ever be fired if he hasn't been already. He has tricked the portion of owners needed for him to stay in power, by making them think that the increase in popularity of hockey since he came into power, was HIS doing. But the fact of the matter is that ALL sports popularity has increased across the board in that time span. This was not because of him, but rather, in spite of him.
  • 0

#139 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,026 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:36 AM

Anyone who's been alive as long as the Canucks has been in existence knows how poorly the league is run. The NHL has been successful in spite of it's leadership. This illustrates the type of owners that have traditionally been with the NHL. They may be good business people in their field. But they know nothing of entertainment or sports entertainment, nor do they care about their own customers.

The fact that we've had 3 work stoppages, and they've signed off on Bettman's hair brained schemes to win over non-traditional hockey markets, speaks volumes. The players are what the fans pay to see, and it seems the players and coaches and fans are the only ones that care about the sport.

The fact that the NHL had deals with ESPN and ESPN 2 in the 90's and let that partner walk away shows how short sighted they are. The league used expansion to provide revenues during the dead puck era. They didn't do anything to fix the dead puck era for almost a full decade.

NHL fans have a right to complain. Who do you think pays for all this? That sad part is the league doesn't want to listen to it's best customers.

It's arrogant presumption to think "I'm a business person I know best!". Well if you don't provide products and services that customers want, you don't stay in business very long. And businesses that do listen to customers are the ones that make even more money. I've seen from practical experience that there's a lot of stupid business people out there. And their companies don't last long, because their competition who does the job better, and more to the customer's satisfaction takes business away from them.
  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#140 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,026 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:41 AM

This is the problem, he isn't actually doing his job, his job isn't to be a puppet for the owners, his job is to protect the game from the owners, his job is to LEAD not follow, the owners job is to make money, the commissioner's job is to see it is done in a legal and ethical manner.



[the owners are discussing the commissioner's job with Judge Landis]
Judge Friend: Well we're in search of someone uh...
Charles Comiskey: We feel that we need a commissioner who will clean up baseball and give a new face to the sport. We're prepared to grant you certain powers...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Absolute powers
Charles Comiskey: Absolute powers?
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Won't work any other way. People won't believe it. Absolute powers
Charles Comiskey: Well we're prepared to give you a 5 year contract...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Lifetime contract
Judge Friend: Lifetime?
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: A man worried about his job is bound to play favorites. Now you gentlemen don't want that do you?
Charles Comiskey: Well a lifetime contract sounds a little...
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: [slaps flyswatter down on the desk] I'm due back in the courtroom in 5 minutes gentlemen, let's talk salary.


Eight Men Out?

Love that movie. It also illustrates how far we've come from players being paid peanuts. And it shows how stupid owners can shoot themselves in the foot if they care more about money than anything else.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#141 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:43 AM

Anyone who's been alive as long as the Canucks has been in existence knows how poorly the league is run. The NHL has been successful in spite of it's leadership. This illustrates the type of owners that have traditionally been with the NHL. They may be good business people in their field. But they know nothing of entertainment or sports entertainment, nor do they care about their own customers.


I agree with pretty much everything. The NHL has been fruitful despite poor leadership. Its almost sad to think what it could have become if lead properly beginning from many years ago. Its never too late to start.
  • 0

#142 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:40 AM

I agree with most of what Ghost of 1915 said, except the ESPN deals. ESPN was dicking the league around throughout the 90s and they did well to sever ties and find a new partner.

But yes, the NHL likes to trumpet their revenue increases. I think with better management of the league they could be neck and neck with the NBA these days. Might sound odd but the NBA was considered a joke of a league through much of the 80s. They were basically saved by Michael Jordan.
  • 0

#143 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:21 AM

Anyone who's been alive as long as the Canucks has been in existence knows how poorly the league is run. The NHL has been successful in spite of it's leadership. This illustrates the type of owners that have traditionally been with the NHL. They may be good business people in their field. But they know nothing of entertainment or sports entertainment, nor do they care about their own customers.

The fact that we've had 3 work stoppages, and they've signed off on Bettman's hair brained schemes to win over non-traditional hockey markets, speaks volumes. The players are what the fans pay to see, and it seems the players and coaches and fans are the only ones that care about the sport.

The fact that the NHL had deals with ESPN and ESPN 2 in the 90's and let that partner walk away shows how short sighted they are. The league used expansion to provide revenues during the dead puck era. They didn't do anything to fix the dead puck era for almost a full decade.

NHL fans have a right to complain. Who do you think pays for all this? That sad part is the league doesn't want to listen to it's best customers.

It's arrogant presumption to think "I'm a business person I know best!". Well if you don't provide products and services that customers want, you don't stay in business very long. And businesses that do listen to customers are the ones that make even more money. I've seen from practical experience that there's a lot of stupid business people out there. And their companies don't last long, because their competition who does the job better, and more to the customer's satisfaction takes business away from them.


You have a couple of things backwards. The NHL didn't drop ESPN. They dropped the NHL when they could have gotten a long term deal for peanuts. Why? Because ESPN got better ratings from bowling. Btw, the NHL hadn't been on ESPN1 since the early 80's. ESPN2, where the lesser sports reside, carried the NHL.

It wasn't Bettman's "hair brained schemes" it was the owners. When they first hired Bettman he was given two priorities: Expand the league and get a national US broadcaster. A national broadcast is a hard sell for a sport that isn't national. Which is why expansion went into non-traditional markets. This wasn't Bettman's idea, it was the mandate he was given by the owners.

I may not like all the NHL choices but I understand them. Hamilton doesn't create new fans. New markets create new fans. You can't get a national broadcaster without a national sport. The dead puck era balanced the game out between the free spenders and the poor expansion teams. The free spenders still had the advantage but at least the poor teams were not getting blown away game after game. It's tough to sell fans on a team that consistently gets blown out. These are pretty simple concepts.

The problem with going into non-traditional markets is it takes decades to create a strong following. But that's made more difficult if those teams can't even compete. Which means there has to be a balance between the have and the have nots.
  • 0
Posted Image

#144 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,170 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:08 AM

You have a couple of things backwards. The NHL didn't drop ESPN. They dropped the NHL when they could have gotten a long term deal for peanuts. Why? Because ESPN got better ratings from bowling. Btw, the NHL hadn't been on ESPN1 since the early 80's. ESPN2, where the lesser sports reside, carried the NHL.

It wasn't Bettman's "hair brained schemes" it was the owners. When they first hired Bettman he was given two priorities: Expand the league and get a national US broadcaster. A national broadcast is a hard sell for a sport that isn't national. Which is why expansion went into non-traditional markets. This wasn't Bettman's idea, it was the mandate he was given by the owners.

I may not like all the NHL choices but I understand them. Hamilton doesn't create new fans. New markets create new fans. You can't get a national broadcaster without a national sport. The dead puck era balanced the game out between the free spenders and the poor expansion teams. The free spenders still had the advantage but at least the poor teams were not getting blown away game after game. It's tough to sell fans on a team that consistently gets blown out. These are pretty simple concepts.

The problem with going into non-traditional markets is it takes decades to create a strong following. But that's made more difficult if those teams can't even compete. Which means there has to be a balance between the have and the have nots.

To the point, great post. The NHL cost structure cannot survive, long term, on a 'gate' driven revenue stream. The half dozen USA franchises in serious trouble might end up with a couple being relocated but the owners took a risk which was worth it considering the carrot of expanded USA media sales. The NFL has $45 billion in media contracts, the NHL has > $3 billion.
  • 0

#145 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:46 PM

To the point, great post. The NHL cost structure cannot survive, long term, on a 'gate' driven revenue stream. The half dozen USA franchises in serious trouble might end up with a couple being relocated but the owners took a risk which was worth it considering the carrot of expanded USA media sales. The NFL has $45 billion in media contracts, the NHL has > $3 billion.


And what better way to increase that market share than pulling the product off the shelves indefinitely?

Meanwhile the NFL's product has probably never been better - and ironically, they tried to play hard ball with their officials (obviously not as vital as the players) they saw the writing on the wall, looked at the gain/loss reality and gave a little.
  • 0

#146 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:36 AM

Apparently, the Commissioner is expected to meet others conditions, and wherein such other criterion's are required of the Commissioner, one needs to assess how successful he has been at meeting them:

"According to the NHL Constitution, Article VI, section 6.1:


"6.1 Office of Commissioner, Election and Term of Office The League shall employ a Commissioner selected by the Board of Governors. The Commissioner shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League. The Board of Governors shall determine the term of office and compensation of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall be elected a majority of the Governors present and voting at a League meeting at which a quorum was present when it was convened."[1]


In Section 6.3, his duties are spelled out as having "responsibility for the general supervision and direction of all business and affairs of the League", co-ordinates matters between member clubs and serves as the principal public spokesman for the League. The Commissioner also has authority over dispute resolution, League committees, interpretation of League rules, appointment of League staff, NHL financial matters, contracting authority, scheduling, officials and disciplinary powers.[2] The Commissioner also determines the date and places of Board of Governor meetings."

[Emphasis my own]

The fact that he gets booed by fans wherever he goes does not bode well for the reputation of the NHL. When I go grocery shopping, I rely heavily on what the majority of consumers are buying ie. the most popular product on the shelf, as I'm not that familiar with grocery items because I don't shop that much and this saves me from disappointment and wasting my money. Thus far this method has not failed me, which further reaffirms to me that consumers really do know best.

I actually found the NHL Constitution (the rules by which govern the league) from the HFBoards Forum. It's attached as Exhibit A to the William Daly Declaration (http://v1.theglobean...CoyotesDaly.pdf). Take note of the indemnification clause only for the "Commissioner" under s. 6.4. Granted, the Commissioner is only covered if he/she had acted in good faith. Oddly enough, other officers of the league are not offered the same protection, unless, I missed it. In this day and age, officers can be held personally liable for any wrongdoing on behalf of the company anyways.

"From the William Daly declaration:
- NHL Constitution: pages 26-56
- NHL ByLaw 35 (Transfer of Franchise Ownership): pages 58-59
- NHL ByLaw 36 (Transfer of Franchise Location): pages 79-83
- NHL and NHL Enterprises licensing agreement: pages 61-77"

And the irony of it all, the NHL is a "not for profit" entity?

Edited by Mauii, 19 December 2012 - 12:52 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#147 Tangerines

Tangerines

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,314 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:43 AM

How bout a bullet in the head?


  • 1

#148 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:30 AM

How bout a bullet in the head?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_-QGNUYL5g


Bullet In Your Head doesn't seem particularly John Lennon-ish.
  • 0
Posted Image

#149 kurtis

kurtis

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,412 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

Posted Image
  • 1
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.