| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/26/2009 : 14:36:52
My goal is to get 50 forum members to sign this petition in favour of Gary Bettman. For the background, read my latest Blog. In short, I find it disgusting the way people boo Gary Bettman, and I think we should show him that there are people out there who do like him and appreciate all his hard work.
---------------
We, the undersigned, support NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and are of the opinion that his impact on the game of hockey and the National Hockey League in particular, has been positive.
We recognize that decisions will always please some at the exclusion of others, yet we feel that the overall contribution of Gary Bettman in his tenure as commissioner has helped the game and the league.
We applaud Mr. Bettman for being a fine ambassador to the game, and for conducting himself with class and dignity.
We appreciate the work he has done, and wish to express our gratitude for it.
----------------
1. Alex |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest4376 |
Posted - 02/08/2009 : 17:13:08
Bettman is ruining the game of hockey its been the same for a century why change it. It is just fine how it is,( delay of game crap.) The man that should be running the league is someone that has been there and played the game but is also business smart in his older age. Someone that sees hot states cant hold teams and dont deserve to get them in the first place. Canada made the sport and it is bigger then ever here so where are the jets, nordiques, and the Hamilton team. Get a Canadian in there and stop are sport from being taking away from us. Bettman is a needle d*** clown. He has done a few good things , but a lot more bad then good. He can go hang out with no trade clause ferguson jr for all I care. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/08/2009 : 16:08:37
I found this interview today and I thought it would be great to post.
First of all, I would like to say that Canada is a better place for George Stroumboulopoulos. I think he will single handedly make Canadian Youth more informed about global events as well as pop culture and sport.
Secondly, this is 15 minutes of your time that will not be wasted. It is about as candidly as I have ever heard Bettman speak. It's pretty decent. It is also interesting that when he talked about Basillie, he clearly said he does not get a vote.
Check it out (there is a gap between 7-8 minutes but wait it out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyl9jo4BLec&feature=channel |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 10:00:18
Hey PorkChop, you got some serious "chops" yourself!! This was fun and it took a little digging for my posts. It's all good in the hood.
The scary thing about this is that I do (personally) agree with much of what you said. The problem I find is that when a thread like this gets going way to one side(such as this one being very one sided against Bettman) I feel the need to argue the point so that people can see all side of the arguement. Personally, there are better people in the hockey world to represent the NHL than Bettman. However, I have to try to look at what not only what I think, but what is factual.
And I never meant to discredit you or your sources. Just wanted to look at all sides.
And I have to say, I THINK you are totally correct that another team in Southern Ontario would be a long term benefit to the league. Problem is, I don't KNOW that for sure.
Good times had by all. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 17:04:41
Okay Beans, you win, I could not possibly "Just happen to know" and you being able to post any article you want will trump that anytime.
The article I chose to post was as close to an accurate portrayal as I could find according to what I "Just happen to know". You are right, at the time of its printing, it was only heresay. I am unable to prove to you otherwise.
Your articles from the Globe and Mail are interesting reads and are also accurate in reporting. I am not sure they are more credible then anything I could post here and say "I just happen to know" but I can never prove that to you without you saying "thats bulls%#".
As a business man, bringing another team into my area does not seem a good idea based on exactly what you stated. But step outside the box a little bit, look at the picture slightly different. There are business dynamics at play that could actually increase TOs revenue taking. Simply put, should the Leafs develop a heated rivalry (like they used to have with Habs and most recently the Sens) with this new team, there are endless possibilites with TV deals, merchandising and, promotional profiting. These would only add to solid gates sales to improve revenues. The leafs would not lose any TV deal revenue if you wish to argue that. The team that this would truly hurt is the Buffalo Sabres, they could not and already do not match the Leafs in any business aspect.
So to answer your last statement of looking at it from a business point of view. I already have, I do that everyday. (not just about hockey)
I was being sarcastic about the Bettman doing good by saving Pittsburg but I have not really looked into that particular incident. I WOULD have to do some homework for that topic. You are right, it would be hypocritical for me to say one was good and not the other but there could be differences in each scenerio as to what Bettman did. I am only familier with one scenerio.
Truth be told I really do not have to do homework on this topic, and I certainly cannot post any document on this site or any site to verify my arguement (I would get into a little bit of trouble and I like my job). I was just trying to be a little over the top by say my homework was done.
I will not debate this topic any further. I cannot debate this as just a fan of the game anymore as it is getting to extremely close to what I do for a living and I will not go there. That takes the fun out being a member in a hockey forum for me and I don't know about you but I just want to be able to debate as a fan and leave work at work. Some topics I need to learn to avoid. I truly enjoyed this debate with you and wish I could give you the answers I want to. You are good at this and your knowledge is impressive. I look forward to more debates with you.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 10:16:03
Here's my beef with this. If you are going to site a news report, cite one that has been substatianted by both sides. This report is the Sports Equivilant to "Elvis is a live and the father of 7 alien babies."
Here is the key quote from the entire store.
In a series of e-mails with ESPN.com this week, Leipold insisted the e-mails between him and Rodier do not tell the whole story and the full disclosure of communication between the two sides would tell a different story. But Leipold would not provide further information and described Rodier as a "rogue lawyer."
Leipold is the Owner of Nashville.
Ever wonder why the entire story is filled with the words "accused" and "alleged???" It is all hear say. It proves nothing one way or the other. ESPN had to write it this way because they could not find anyone to go on record agreeing.
This is Nothing. It's all speculation.
And as far as your "homework" being done by saying "I happen to know." Sorry man, that just doesn't cut it. The article says that 14,000 "deposits" were received. The season tickets were not sold. How many of those people would have went on to actually buy the tickets?? Again, you can speculate but you can never be factual on that. By the way, here is another report, dated a few days before yours with the "just over 12,000 deposits". I don't just happen to know, I will quote any source I ever use.
(Sorry, you will have to copy and paste the links into your browser, they are far too long and make the thread too wide. I hate that!)
http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070618.
wsptpreds18/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070618.wsptpreds18
Here's another that says that through the 2nd day, they had not reached 10,000 yet.
http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070615.
wsptpreds15/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home
I dunno. Globe and Mail kinda trumps your "I happen to know" in my books.
Besides, I did not argue that a team would not thrive in Southern Ontario. It would, and I agree. My point is that Bettman is not solely responsible for that. And just in case Bettman was someway involved in stopping the deal, do you blame him?? No one can talk about the possible involvement of Toronto. In 2007, Toronto produced a little more than 5% of the total NHL revenues but more importantly, brought in (single handedly) over 55% of the league profits. As a business man, why would you want to introduce competition into that area??
That is simply bad business. Even if Nashville is losing money, put another team in Hamilton, and even if it breaks even or makes a litte(which is rare for an expansion team) how much of that money is coming out of TO's numbers??? It's not a for sure money maker. It is more than likely to be the same as Nashville in.
And again, you have to look at things one and the same. Why is it ok that Bettman's intervention on Pitt was good but if (and a big if) he interviened on Nashville that is bad???
You can't have one without the other. You can't say one was good and the other was bad.
I would just really appreciate if people could try to look at this from the perspective of a business and not just want the fans want. It would really open some eyes. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 18:18:03
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And please provide me what some kind of information that shows Bettman was involved in shutting down the deal for Nashville. All he did was say that IF Basillie was to become the owner(which has to get past the board in the first place) that he would have to do the things required to move the franchise. He just couldn't move it on his own accord.
It was the current owner of the Preds that shutdown that deal. Not Bettman. If I am wrong, please show me the proof.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2943692
Heres a little story that gives you the side of the story from Balsilles side and what they felt stopped the deal. It supports very clearly my point about Bettman.
Now as I said I do not believe Bettman is a villain or that he is the scapegoat for the league. But I consider him a failure for not doing what could have made the league even more successful and for doing things like blocking an extremely wealthy man from owning a franchise. It was no different when Jets were sold and the new owner moved them to that hockey hotbed in Pheonix. No different then selling the Nordiques and moving them to Colorado. No different then Minnesota being sold and moved to Dallas. No different then Hartford sold and moved to Carolina. Why did Bettman not put his special rules into play then, why did he stick his nose into the Nashville deal. Balsille had agreed to pay 240 million to the Preds owners, 100 million more then they were valued at. You cannot tell me the Pred owners were not going to accept that. That is more return on product value then you could possible get anywhere. No one would have said "no I don't want your extra 100 mil because I enjoy losing 10 mil a year".
The article does point out how Bettman saved the penguins and that was a good thing, it also points out that he did it so that Balsille would not re offer on them and move them to Ontario.
You will also note in the article that 14000 season tickets were sold in 2 days for that Hamilton franchise and I happen to know it was 10000 in the first day.
Homework done!!!! |
| Gostarsgo12 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 14:21:47
For sure I'll sign it. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 14:20:34
Slozo, I think you might be missing my point. What I am saying is that you have to go on what has actually happened, not what might have happened or could have happened.
And yes, Bettman (along with the Board of Governors) was instramental in retaining the franchise in Edmonton. Without the small market subsidies that were set up through the mid-90's(based on season ticket sales) or the Canadian Team subsidies when there is a disparity between Canadian and American Currency, the investment group that took over the Oilers from Peter Puck (or ATB depending on how you look at it) never would have or could have purchased the franchise. Again, something that is not all him but he was involved in it.
And, looking at Southern Onterio, you are more than likely correct. They COULD sustain a few franchises. However, that is being based on the current support for the Leafs. That is a storied and established original 6 franchise. There is good evidence to support that another team could be sustain, but that is not a sure thing. Nothing is. Just like the current expansion teams not doing well. At the time of expansion, they appeared to be very viable markets. Now they are not. Hindsight is 20/20. And you can say what ever you want about teams in Florida, Phoenix, Atlanta, and the other southern US teams. I won't listen to it. Why?? Because LA has had a viable franchise since 67. That's longer than Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver along with other since viable teams in the league. And just because the team was not viable at one point, they might be viable later.
And the part that really gets my goat is that people seem selective on the expansion thing. Everyone talks about Florida, Phoenix, Atlanta, Columbus, and Nashville. That is unfair, as the other Expansions (Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Minnesota(both the move to Dallas and adding back the Wild, Anaheim), and Carolina have all been successful since expansion. No one talks about Colorado's success since leaving Quebec.
And the biggest point I think you are missing is that Bettman is 100% responsible. He is not. That is plain and simple. You can blame Bettman. I do to a certain degree as well. But that is not his blame 100%. You have to blame the board, and ulitimately each of the owners as much as Bettman.
Do you disagree with that???
Now frankly, I don't like Bettman as a person. I think he is horrible in the media and he does sound like a tool most of the time. That is something that can be pinned 100% on him.
And please provide me what some kind of information that shows Bettman was involved in shutting down the deal for Nashville. All he did was say that IF Basillie was to become the owner(which has to get past the board in the first place) that he would have to do the things required to move the franchise. He just couldn't move it on his own accord.
It was the current owner of the Preds that shutdown that deal. Not Bettman. If I am wrong, please show me the proof. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 13:54:39
Okay I will clarify one thing. I am not making Bettman the scapegoat, nor do I think he is villain, nor do I think he was bad at the job. I just think he did not do the best job he could have done. He did not understand the demographics of the sport and expanded into areas the NHL would never thrive.
And yes I did not do mmy homework on the Hamilton numbers but fact is they had more season tickets sold on a chance of an NHL team coming there then any of the expansion teams have had in average attendance. It is also very much true that it was Bettman who stepped in to block that transaction. The owners had the deal done and and Bettman did some fancy rule changes that nulified the deal. That is fact.
The glow puck was just a pet peeve, but it was Bettmans idea and I don't care what network it was.
But back to your original arguement about revenues. The increased revenue was a direct result of the economy over the last 11 yrs. Despite the US list a recession in 91 and and early 2000 there is not an economist on the planet who will say that they were absolute recessions like in the 80s and what we will be experiencing for the next 2 yrs. I just gave my head a shake and realized (being in the business that I am) that we certainly have had great economical time for at least 18 years with no significant unrecovered loss since 88. Hence the revenue generated by the NHL in the same period of time show the same growth and loss as the north american economy. Shaking my head faster I also see a direct coralation with value of the Canadian dollar, giving reason for the canadian franchises providing the percentage of revenue to the league that they did.
I guess all I am saying is Bettman had the resources and proper economic times to do a lot better than he did. He just lacked the ability. Not a villain, not a scapegoat, he just could have done a whole lot better. |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 11:13:19
No scapegoating, Beans - I just don't think he's done a very good job, and I certainly don't think he has always had hockey's best interests at heart.
Is he evil? Probably not (although you never know). But judging by his words and actions, I deem him to be bad for hockey.
And I don't have the time to get in a long discussion, but Bettman saving Edmonton?!? Puh-leeze! Hamilton might not have profitted from the LARGEST AND MOST HOCKEY-MAD MARKET IN THE WORLD?!? Pu-leeze!!!
Those lines alone are just ridiculous, dude. The Toronto area could support three times, just like the NY area does, except they would ALL be making money. Sure, Buffalo and Toronto would have had issues, and if it had come to the table as a proposition, they would have been furiously negotiating over it. But Bettman stopped it cold before it ever got there.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 09:57:17
Sorry, try as I might I just can't do it.....
I agree that he has done more good than bad, I agree it's the board that runs the league and he is just the figurehead.....therein lies my conundrum.
For me, it's a cosmetic thing.....
With Zielger, you had this distinguished, aritocratic looking, talking-head, that although guilty of his own misgivings as commish, at least looked the part.
Shallow I know, but I can't help it.
I always get this niggle of a giggle every time I see Gary involved in anything official, up steps a player named for whatever, and there stands Bettman. ugh.
He makes Theo Fleury look like Arnold. It's like someone's kid won a contest to wear a bad comb-over and be commissioner for a day...I know, again shallow, I cannot help it!!
The only thing missing is the theme music from Lord of the Rings, or 'Short People" by Randy Newman, playing when he approaches a podium, again, I know, I know, my bad.
So it pains me to say, even though I think Bettman does a decent job as commish, until players get smaller, or Gary goes on the juice.....I cannot in good conscience cast a favorable vote.
 |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 09:19:21
OK, something else that people are failing to see. When most of the expansions teams came into the league in the mid-90's, hockey was as hot as it every had been in the states. Gretzky was a King, Lemieux was a Penguin, guys like Modano, Yzerman, Roenick, Lindros and the likes were dominating the league. Bettman took a risk on expansion at that time and tried to strike while the Iron was hot. The fact that people are being critical in decisions made 10-15 years ago is absurd. How many other companies/sports teams and even sports leagues have folded since then?? C'mon. 15 years ago GM was a stable and profitable company, look at them know!!!
And I think people are failing to see a few positive things. Edmonton would have certainly been gone without league help in the mid-90's and that was much of Bettman's doing. Winnipeg and Quebec would have folded if not relocated. I think it's better to have non-Canadian teams than have teams fold.
And before you pin the Basillie/Nashville thing on Bettman, you might want to do a little homework. The Sabres and Leafs both had issues with a team in Hamilton, as well as the fact that Basillie was planning on doing something without the support of the league. It was the board of governors that had exception to Basillie taking deposits for season tickets, not Bettman. And it was the Preds Owners that backed out of the deal. It was not Bettman or the NHL. And, your numbers are not correct. It was a little more than 7,000 deposits the first day, it was about 5 days until they reached close to 12,000.
But that doesn't tell you anything. Back in the mid-90's, the Oilers had to literally beg on the streets to get 13,000 season ticket holders. Today, there are waiting lists for something like 15,000 season tickets. You (or anyone else) can say that Hamilton would have stayed viable for the long term. You can't say if Basillie would have put in a good management team or not. Maybe they get great season tickets for the first couple of years, then they tank financially because they are a losing team and the Leafs are a good team so they get the support. No would can see the future and no one can tell if a Hamilton team would be viable in the long run.
You are talking about might have, could have, should have. Let's take a look at what actually happened.
-In the mid-90's, if the Commish did not try to capitalize on the popularity of Gretzky and Lemieux, that would have been stupid. 10 years later, there are some of the teams that are not running well. Still doesn't make expansion and bad idea.
-Like the puck or not. Like the labour disputes or not, like anything he has done, the league is more financially successful, has higher attendance, and has higher TV ratings in Canada under Bettman.
-You say the economy has been great for the past 15 years??? Give your head a shake. Might want to look at a little history. The US listed period of recession in the early 90's as well as the early 2000's. Really, the economy has been "good" for a shorter time in the past 15 years than "bad."
-You question the glowing puck?? Firstly, it was Fox and not ABC that was involved. The network did it because of the complaint from people in the states that they could not follow the game. (Actually, if you take the blinders off for a second and watch a game of hockey objectively, you will notice that most often you are following the action of the players, not the puck itself, unless the camera is zoomed in. And if you think about it for a second, if you can't see the puck, would you not have a hard time understanding what the skaters are doing and why??). Another interesting note is that Fox did a survey after putting the puck into use and 7 of 10 people liked it and they said it was the reason they were watching hockey. Now, I didn't like the Fox puck either, but if it grew the game in the states, so be it. Also, I have found absolutely nothing linking the Fox Puck to Bettman. If you have found something, show it to me. But, I don't think you will find it either.
At the end of the day, people need a scapegoat. They need someone to blame when things don't go right or are not what they want. Bettman is the NHL's scapegoat. No ifs ands or buts about it.
He's just not my scapegoat because I understand that the NHL is bigger than one man and that the NHL has been ruled by the owners and partially by the players for the past 30 years. If the owners and players did not like the direction or the decisions that Bettman has made, he would be gone. |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:40:55
In sports, like in life, there are villains and there or heroes. As long as there are struggles, the person in charge almost inevitably is cast as the villain. For better or for worse, Bettman plays the villain for many reasons, but mostly because he invites it through his demeanor.
Does this mean he actually is a villain? This I don't know. But I do know that few things are ever black and white. Change hurts and I believe that Bettman does have the best interests of the league in mind when he operates. But this means sacrifice on all sides of the table (league, players and fans) So without a doubt this will frustrate and anger people on all of these sides.
Bettman is abrasive and awkward, but he is not pure evil as some people cast him to be. He does not have a long dark shadow lingering behind him to rival the likes of Alan Eagleson. But boo him when he steps on the ice? Sure! We're fans and since we can't be in the boardroom we need to vocalize ourselves where we can. Would someone else have done a better job than him? With hindsight as their guide, absolutely! Without it, I'm not sure anyone could have.
I wouldn't sign this petition only because I want to boo him at times and that's my prerogative. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:17:07
Come on Beans just admit that it is Bettman who has pushed really hard to develop NHL hockey in markets that will never support NHL hockey. Of course I am talking about his expansion teams in Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, Columbus.
He could of easily established teams in a more financially viable market (ie Hamilton) and gained more league revenue. By expanding to the markets he did he limited the financial gains the league could have made because each of the previously mentioned teams (and some others in non-NHL markets) had not posted a profit even through a great decade of global economic gain. Just think if there was a another team in Hamilton during the same period. They sold over 10,000 season tickets in one day just on the thought that Jim Balsille was going to move the Preds there. Surely that one team would have produced more revenue then all of Bettmans expansion teams combined. And who was it the altered the rules when that was going to happen, it was Bettman. So was that in the best interest of the league, I don't think so.
It is definetly fair to say not to confuse Bettmans success with a decade of great economic gains. Thats because without those years of global economy thriving, Bettman would have looked like a total idiot. If Bettman was so good, there will be no team lost during these hard economical times because he would have set the league up for the future.
Also one thing that you are overlooking. The Board of Governers does have the ability to make the choices for the league but the man who all decisions must be approved by is GARY BETTMAN. Case in point, the board of Governers did not even get a chance to vote on the sale of the Nashville Preds to Balsille, Bettman axed that himself.
Also, the glow puck was approved by Bettman himself. Not only approved by him but Bettman had told ABC to produce such a gimmick in order to help the morons in the non hockey markets follow the puck.
This cannot be denied, therefor Bettman is a failure. He failed to grow the NHL to its full potential, choosing instead to try and force it into markets that will never support or care about the NHL as long as there is high school football games on TV. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 12:46:13
1) Regardless of the influence that Bettman has, the Board still has to approve. If he was so bad, why is he stil there??
2) In regards to the Labour Dispute. From what I understand it is part of his responsibilities as the Commich that he will negotiate with the NHLPA on behalf of the Owners and the Board. So that is on his head completely. However, I might be wrong but I am pretty sure that the entire league owners need to vote on a labour dispute. They gave him that power.
3)Yes, revenue is for the owners. They own the teams. It is their money that is gone if a team folds. They are supposed to make money. It is a business. And please don't elude that the players are not getting their share. The all star game alone has over $200 million in contracts on the ice.
4) If the league is so garbage since Bettman took over, why have overall league attendances increased since the lock out?? Obviously this year has some negative impacts from the Economy. Are we blaming Bettman for that too??
5) The Glowing Puck was the network. There are certain rights the TV guys have in television the games. And, the Fox deal was worth $155 million dollars. Not bad for a stupid streak on the screen. It also paved the way for a $600 million deal from ABC and ESPN. That deal was $115 million a year more than what the NHL received in 91-92 for the US TV right. And don't talk to me about inflation or anything else. That is sick!
Not unlike anything else in life, you take the good with the bad. Sure, it would be nice to have more Canadian teams, less failing expansion teams, and the greatest hockey ever played. However, this is not 1979 it's 2009. Some things are gone and never coming back.
Do I like the NHL better today than the 80's and early 90's? Nope. Do I like the NHL today better than basically 97 through the lock out, without question.
And I still stand firm, Bettman had help in every decision he has made. The blame is not all his the same way the credit is not all his for the good things in the game. |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 05:04:00
No Beans, nobody blamed the perrenial financial loser teams like New Jersey and the Isles on Bettman. You are attempting to taint the argument by sidetracking.
The point several people have made is that, despite what you may think about Bettman not having much power as commissioner, he has a heck of a lot of influence, and that equals power. It may not be the power to directly influence in some cases, but by indirect means and backroom deals, he surely has influenced many key decisions.
1) You mention revenue. For whom? The owners. Sorry, but what does that have to do with the quality of the product for the fans, and the integrity of the game?!? NOTHING. This is part of the reason hockey is in trouble under Bettman, as he only cares about one thing: money. And, using your argument that Bettman doesn't have much power, why does he get full credit for this?
2) Licensing agreements. Licensing agreements? WTF? see point 1.
3) You can't possibly say he successfully managed ANY labour disputes, lol . . . he wasn't the one 'managing' it in the first place, as you later point out! You can't have it both ways. I assert that he has a lot of influence in terms of labour disputes, and most certainly has a lot of say in avoiding them - which he failed miserably at, because he's a bottom line guy, a greedy bum who was kicked out of the NBA for exactly this kind of behaviour.
So - if you're going to defend Bettman, please defend these points:
1) Financial failure for most of his expansion teams - you know, the ones he really pushed forward to increase revenues in the US (see: greedy).
2) Prevention of any franchise going to Canada, especially when you you have the chance of having a team in Hamilton with more season tickets sold in advance than most of the expansion teams under his watch have right now! Here is the only instance of Bettman not caring about money, as he clearly has a hate on for Canadian cities (I think he is just too pigheaded about americanising the game, and it would go against his plans).
3) Glowing Puck! lol . . . 'nuff said.
4) Heading off labour disputes BEFORE they happened (this is what smart management does in business). Placing a list of requirements on the table before coming back to the negotiation table - basically, not bargaining in good faith. He was steering the ship when hockey lost a full season due to the player's strike, the only NA professional league to ever lose a full season.
5) His lack of hockey knowledge and people skills. This is reflected in the way he is greeted in hockey rinks in Canada and the states.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 20:15:00
People, please. You are missing the point. Anything you don't like about hockey today can not be blamed solely on Bettman. He is not the only factor. Any expansion, any team folding/sold/relocating, any rule changes etc all have to go though THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS!!!!!
That's as plain and simple as it can be. Anything you blame on Bettman needs to be blamed on the members of that board as well.
And as a quick side note, New Jersey and the Islanders have been two of the worst performing financial teams over the past 5 year. You going to blame that on Bettman as well???
|
| Guest8229 |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 10:24:15
As a long time fan of the game and Canadian, I've grown to respect certain people and their opinions...Ron Maclean for instance is someone everybody who loves hockey should respect and listen to because he knows what he's talking about.Grapes as opinionated as he is, he knows what he's talking about.Gary Bettman on the other hand, doesn't know what he's talking about and his attitude towards Ron Maclean at the all star game on national television, is bad for the game. Everytime I see his face and hear him talking it disgusts me and I wonder, when will they relieve this guy of his duties as commissioner so all of us proud Candian hockey fans can finally say,F___k you, Bettman. |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 10:14:38
Well, it would have been nice to see nashville die and move to southern ontario, but at the same time he has a responsibility to the owners to ensure long term stability for existing franchises. Relocation of teams, or straight up folding of teams, would not look good on garys resume. He is going to do whatever it takes to make sure he explores every option available to him and the owners to ensure that the franchise survives.
As much as people want to see teams pack up and relocate, or just go away, teams aren't quite at the point yet where they absolutley have no other choice but to do one of those 2 things. Phoenix is really close now, but only now are they at that point.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Odin |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 09:44:42
He had a hand in blocking Jim Balsillie in buying Nashvile.l |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 08:41:42
Did you ever stop to think that maybe, the people who owned quebec and winnipeg SOLD their teams? It had nothing to do with Bettman, if someone who owns something wants to sell it, because they can make a s*** load of moolah, than who is to stop them?
Like I said above, he did help save Edmonton and Ottawa, so 2 of 4 ain't so bad is it? So don't say he doesn't care about Canadian teams. While alot of the expansion teams haven't worked out so well, there are examples of some that have. What about San Jose? Can't imagine the NHL without the sens now can you? Tampa Bay has been a pretty good franchise that has won a cup, ditto for Anaheim and Carolina.
Atlanta, nashville and Florida suck.... but I dont mind the blue jackets that much. People like hockey in Ohio.
If Gary can manipulate the draft lottery and make sure the leafs get the 1st overall pick ill love him even more 
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Guest9847 |
Posted - 01/28/2009 : 05:54:33
Whatever, I'm in. |
| hanley6 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 22:51:41
Alex, i like your work, you are one interesting cat, man!!! but Gary Bettman????? NOOOO. Gary Bettman lacks Hockey knowledge he knows absolutely nothing about the game. He protects idiots like Todd Bertuzzi and even worse Ulf Samuelsson, a guy who ended the careers of The Great Cam Neely, and Pierre Mondou... He got rid of teams like Quebec and Winnipeg saying they weren't making money and they had a huge fanbase and they were playing really well too.. He don't care about Canadian hockey teams. If Bettman had his way there would be no Canadian hockey teams in the League, but he would invite Canadian hockey players to play for the American teams in the NHL, because most of the best hockey players are Canadian. Bettman has done nothing good for the NHL. He's been trying for years to ban fighting from hockey, which is a huge mistake, but he hasn't done anything to try to get rid of all the cheap shots and stick work. I think someone needs to write a petition to get rid of Gary Bettman, The NHL was better when John Ziegler was President of the NHL |
| Guest9743 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 16:39:42
Bettman is not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. I would sign the petition.
On the subject of struggling expansion teams -- does anyone think that maybe the lockout that happened a few years back had something to do with expansion team struggles? Just as some of these teams were beginning to grow a stable fan base --- oh we cancel the season. Not good fan relations in any market never mind what that does to expansion teams.
Sure Canada -- we can keep the NHL here and here only, never mind the US. The sport will be as popular as curling. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 14:46:03
Beans, although Bettman has increased the revenues you must look at where those revenues come from.
45% of the league revenues come from CANADIAN franchises.
We must give credit to a period in which the high Canadian dollar made incredible revenues for most Canadian teams.
Almost all of Bettmans expansion teams are and have been in financial crisis for the better part of the last 6 yrs. A time (until now) that the global economy was soaring.
Almost all of Bettmans expansion teams posting financial losses in each year of operation. At a time (until now) when the global economy was soaring.
Almost all of Bettmans expansion teams have an average attendance of less then 10,000 per game.
Two lockouts that could have been avoided (both sides at fault) but Bettman needed to be embedded into the process quicker.
Bettman has personally prevented and absolutely denied, and made his own rules so that any chance at another Canadian franchise was squashed.
My personal pet peeve - he allowed ABC to use the glow puck.
Now that the economy is tanking we will see how good Bettman really is. Can he truly lead his NHL through arguably its worst financial crisis. I doubt it, he has had it easy til now. Lets not forget his massive failure in the NBA. They ran his a$$ out of the NBA.
So Alex, I will not sign your petition.
|
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 13:30:35
Ill sign it.
How many canadians remember that he had a big part in SAVING Ottawa and Edmonton?
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 10:04:40
Let's talk about something here.
Who run's the NHL????
Most people would say Gary Bettman, but they are wrong. He is the figure head and granted responsibilities for the day to day operations, but nothing can happen in the league(such as labour stoppages, rule changes, expansions, etc) without the support of the Board of Govenors!!! He can bring many things to the table, lobby for those, and attempt to push them through, but the other Governors have to agree. It's not completely up to Bettman.
What's my point??? I don't think that anyone else could have done that much better of a job. Think of it this way:
1) Revenue's have increased from $400 million a year to over $1.6 billion in his time as commish.
2) Licensing agreements have increased by 700% to over $1.2 billion/season.
2) He successfully managed 2 labour disputes in 10 years. You have to remember, both of those labour disputes were voted on Lock Outs. That is the owners boys, not Bettman. If the owners wanted to keep the game going, they could have and there is nothing Bettman could have done to stop it.
Now, I am not saying he is a saint. Many people think that his agressive approach to expanding the game has caused some smaller cities, specifically in Canada, unable to sustain a team. Also, some have argued that he has not lead much of a marketing division to increase TV revenues and such.
My point is this, I don't think Bettman's impact on the game has been as negative as everyone makes it out to be. I think he is a scapegoat on most counts, and I don't think he's done any different than some of the Commish/Presidents on the NHL in the past. Many people in 67 said bad things about expansion. They said the same thing in 78.
At the end of the day, he's not all good and not all bad. And, he is definately not the sole person responsible for anything you might not like about the game. |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 04:45:32
Guest 4841 - Sir, you demean your argument through your slovenly use of vernacular. Allow me to elucidate, so that through proper argumentation, we may provide a stronger thesis upon which to build our assertation! In short, using a lowlander term that attempts to slight the cognitive powers of this poster only refutes your own argument, reflecting poorly on your personage, schooling, and social discipline. 
Alex - I most humbly regret to inform you that I cannot remit my acceptance of your claim. Mr. Gary "Count Chocula" Bettman most certainly does not have my respect, and quite specifically it is over two aspects of the game which he has greatly influenced: potentially moving a franchise(s) to Canada, and "americanising" the game. These topics have been dealt with at length, and I have commented on both in previous posts. Furthermore, the blight of having a work stoppage due to a player's strike must surely lie somewhat at his feet, and up to 50% of the blame for not negotiating must be put squarely on his shoulders. If need be, I can comment further, but otherwise, my point is made:
I vote TWO THUMBS DOWN for Gary Bettman.
That's the way you debate!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4841 |
Posted - 01/27/2009 : 01:30:21
your an idiot |
|
|
