viking mama Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 According to Wikipedia, "among other duties, the Commissioner leads collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the league and appoints officials for all NHL games." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 well at the very least , this discussion tells us that gary is a very polarizing figure .. , and that brad marchand would be a perfect fit, as commissioner one day .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 One example is the FOX TV deal. It's not really true that Bettman had nothing to do with TV deals. When he first came on board as Commissioner, he was able to negotiate a $155 million dollar broadcast deal with FOX (Huge money for the NHL back in 1994). That deal helped the NHL gain some much needed exposure in the US at a time when revenues were low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Would that be the deal that had FOX put a halo around the puck which actually turned people off of hockey? But you're right, he is credited with helping secure that deal and it was a big deal because before that people thought a US deal wasn't possible for the NHL. Of course, he's also credited with the lockout that occurred the very next year that cost half a season, squandered part of the FOX opportunity, probably cost the league fans they could have made by not being available and just generally made the NHL look horrible with the public and unreliable to potential corporate partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I have stated this before, so I will state it again one more time. The lockout was inevitable. The owners wanted their salary cap. Bettman's job was to secure that. The NHLPA did not want that. That is why the initial lockout (and subsequent one) was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Then I guess the question is why didn't they fully commit to the first lockout then? If they believed the salary cap was so essential, why did they need 2 lockouts to get it? And what noble justification did they have for the last one? And why didn't they have revenue sharing before then if they were concerned about the teams losing money? And why were they expanding into unproven if not known non-hockey markets? Try to slice it any way you want, it was just bad business practices that got the NHL into the hole they were in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 There's that idealism again. ...Even IF there was a person who had all the same motivations and desires that you would expect from your 'dream commissioner' they would not be able to act on that agenda as it would be likely to be in conflict with the owners' agenda. ... If Gary Bettman is truly the problem with the NHL, how will a new commissioner be able to make an impact? Maybe run into the boardroom with an Uzi and take out the BoG? Furthermore, why would the owners want to get rid of Mr. Bettman if he's so damn useful to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Bettman gets paid too much. Most other trolls do their work for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drouin Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Bettman > Stamkos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.