| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 08:53:34
I can't really believe there isn't a topic on this already, but here is where you can direct your hatred of the worst commissioner in all of sports- Mr. Gary Bettman.
Let's put aside the fact that he never personally played hockey before he became league commish, and that he came from an executive position in the NBA for now, since they aren't relevant per se. If he did a good job running the league, no one would care about this.
Let me draw a scenario for you. It's 1994. The New York Rangers win a very close game 7 at home, which was one of the highest rated hockey games ever. The NBA, (NHL's biggest competitor) is in shambles with the MJ retirement, Bird, Magic and company retiring and the game devolving into a ton of hard fouls and not much else. Sports Illustrated runs the title "Why the NHL's hot and the NBA's not." Basically Bettman adopts a league on the way up, with tons of momentum, facing a rival league on the decline.
So what does he do? Initially, he parlays this popularity into big television deals, with lucrative contracts in 1994 and 1998 (good!).
Then, with all the momentum, he intitiates a lockout in1995, which effectively kills all interest in the casual sports fan, turning them back to the NBA (Jordan returns!).
Secondly, he expands the league eventually to 30 teams, while letting Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford relocate to their respective destinations (hmm...). This dilutes the talent pool and lowers the quality of play. The rationale here is of course that corporate money is more important than the blue collar fans and ticket sales hockey primarily relied on previously.
We all know the rest of the story. The game evolves to account for this drop in talent, and weaker talent teams adopt 'the trap' and turn into basically what the NBA did only a few years earlier to turn the tables on the talented teams. With clutching and grabbing, combined with more defensive coaching and better goaltending makes for an awful on-ice product (try watching those old Florida or New Jersey games now, the hockey is so bad it hurts to see). It takes Bettman over a decade to realize the game isn't popular in the U.S. anymore.
Next, we get the 2005 lockout, the longest in any professional sport. During this time, ESPN realizes that combination of bowling, poker and darts they are showing in place of hockey is drawing higher ratings.
Post-lockout, Bettman is forced to sell the TV rights to Comcast to be run on the Outdoor Life Network (now Versus) for around 1/3 of the value of the previous contract. As a result, a good portion of the US (any without comcast) can't even watch NHL games at home.
Within an economic downturn, the number of NHL teams losing money skyrockets. In extreme cases like Phoenix and Atlanta, attendances of less than eight thousand people are common. This is with the likes of $4 tickets and free parking. The Islanders are losing tens of millions annually. Even in traditional hockey markets, attendance is dwindling. The Red wings still had tickets available for the Western Conference final against Chicago, and finals tickets were cheap to come by. As an Ottawa resident, I have seen games for as little as $10 this year, and have been to see Calgary/Washington and Pittsburgh this year (none were close to a sellout)
On a side note, the most ridiculous promotion I heard was in Tampa, where if you renewed your season tickets before a certain date then the General Manager of the team would come to your house and personally wash your car. If you think this is bad, what makes it worse is they went on to win the stanley cup, beating the flames in 7 in the same year.
Despite all this, the NHL has signs of momentum. The on-ice product is better than ever. Younger stars have emerged and rivalries developed (Crosby vs. Ovechkin, etc.) to make media storylines riveting to the average fan. The last Olympics drew over a 17 market share, which is greater than Nascar's premier events, final round of the masters, NBA finals, etc. It is a staggering number for a hockey game.
Will all of this matter? Not with Gary at the helm, unfortunately. He is trying to block NHL players from the Olympics (hopefully this proves difficult), went to the most extreme lengths possible to prevent the movement of a failing franchise to a billionaire). Is hell-bent on keeping the number of teams at 30, and stopping any from relocation (at least to Canada).
Did the olympics just attract some casual fans? Maybe, but if they don't have the right TV package then it doesn't matter. Also, the owners will never get rid of Bettman because he does whatever they say.
What has Bettman accomplished? (Over)Expanding the teams (largely unsuccesfully) to areas where hockey does not have a grassroots base to work with. Allowing player salaries to skyrocket, along with ticket prices to eliminate the average fan. Selling out the TV rights to a non-premier TV network in the US for relative pennies, and basically losing the fight against the NBA when the NHL had the upper hand and distinct advantage going into his term. Oh, and he was personally for leading two prolonged labour stoppages that completely ruined any progress the league was making.
TL;DR- Gary Bettman sucks |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 19:12:44
What I find amazing is that throughout the world of the hockey fans, Bettman is not liked at all. Probably hasn't been, ever since he became the face of the '95 lockout. That's about 15 years of being disliked by the fans, yet he still has his job.
Not sure what this tells those who want to blame Bettman for all things bad, but it certainly tells me that those who are his bosses don't particularly care about what the fans see. They give Bettman a continued vote of confidence, and he continues to do business as THEY mandate him to.
Other than one vocal poster and a cheerleader or two, the one thing every other poster has stated is that the blame isn't black and white, it's shared, to what degree is where the debate can rage, but not in the reality that it's bigger than just Bettman.
Is it not finally safe to say that, yes Bettman is a dis-likable commisioner to the fan, he is the face of too many issues that are turn offs for the fans, but he is far from the sole cause of those issues.
|
| baumer |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 11:26:57
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
@ bounty2k3:
I feel the same way regarding the topic at hand. 50/50 blame, in most cases. We could sit here, break down every single move ever made since Bettman taking over... and sure, some may be solely Bettman's fault. Others may be the Board's. Or, we could call it even at 50/50.
And I can't speak for Beans, but I believe that's the point he has been trying to make. Bettman is at fault, in all things. BUT, the Board is just as equally at fault, if not slightly more so since they can actually remove Bettman. Bettman cannot remove the Board.
I believe myself, perhaps Beans included, are just saying that the blame should be EQUAL. Not just at Bettman.
I would like to also make it known, that I HATE Bettman. I can not stand to listen to the guy, look at him, nothing. He drives me. But I can't solely blame him for the aspects of the NHL that lack. Including, failing teams.
Irvine/prez.
I couldn't agree more. I think the man is a snake and a weasel wrapped into one. But he is not to blame for all of the financial issues the league is having. He has made some bad judgement calls, along with the other board members. IE: Boots del Biaggio and his fraudulent money making. But I look at gary as a good soldier. The board tells him what to do and whether its good for the game or not he does it. Phoenix should have been sold to Balsille with conditions. But then again I don't know if Bettman has any veto power or not? Does anyone know if he has the final say? |
| irvine |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 01:59:43
@ bounty2k3:
I feel the same way regarding the topic at hand. 50/50 blame, in most cases. We could sit here, break down every single move ever made since Bettman taking over... and sure, some may be solely Bettman's fault. Others may be the Board's. Or, we could call it even at 50/50.
And I can't speak for Beans, but I believe that's the point he has been trying to make. Bettman is at fault, in all things. BUT, the Board is just as equally at fault, if not slightly more so since they can actually remove Bettman. Bettman cannot remove the Board.
I believe myself, perhaps Beans included, are just saying that the blame should be EQUAL. Not just at Bettman.
I would like to also make it known, that I HATE Bettman. I can not stand to listen to the guy, look at him, nothing. He drives me. But I can't solely blame him for the aspects of the NHL that lack. Including, failing teams.
Irvine/prez. |
| bounty2k3 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 21:22:03
I know a lot of you are one of two possible decisions. 1. Bettman fully at fault. or 2. Board of Governors fully at fault. What I propose is a 50/50 deal lol. I don't like Bettman as the Commisioner bcause of his pompous attitude and the way he talks down to people, as if he's the greatest human being on th face of the earth. At the same time, it is also the Board of Governors decision making that approves or denies. %50 Bettman for coming up with the idea. %50 for the Board not approving or approving (depending on the idea that is on the table currently).
Just after reading every post in this topic alone, I wasted enough time reading the banter going back to forth, that I figured it was time for me to put my two cents in.
Did I like the lockout years? No. But that also is not completly Bettman or the Board's faults. Not %100 anyways. Again it goes 50/50 as with any business transaction. The NHLPA had a part in extending that lockout. Both in fact. If the NHLPA doesn't agree to a deal, the lockout continues correct?
Before Crosby and Ovechkin, who was the face of the NHL for a few years? Bettman. During those years did attendance improve? Did market share go up? My thoughts on those two questions are no. How many fans out there actually like Bettman? Probably none lol. How many of the owners like him? On a personal level, most of them wouldn't sit around for coffee with him. On a business level they love him, he makes them money.
So after seeing all these posts, I found myself agreeing with both sides. I'm looking for the middle ground here. I'm pretty sure there'll be a reply and shooting me down. I'm used to it. I enjoy debating. 
GO HAWKS GO!!! |
| Phevos |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 20:21:33
Finally decided to register as I find myself posting more and more. First post!
Anyways...
Not entirely Bettman's fault on the TV deals. Look at the past winter olympics, NBC didn't air any hockey games live except for the gold medal game. They relegated the first Can vs. US game to MSNBC so they could reserve prime time for...wait for it...ice dancing!
That's how much draw the networks believe hockey has.
I also have to add, if you think rejecting Balsillie as an owner has anything to do with Canada vs US, you are mistaken. It is 100% about retaining control over their franchises and where they go. That's why every single owner turned him down; regardless of who it was, they would not let a franchise move in that manner. The Canada vs US was perfectly played by Balsillie with "make it 7" to put pressure on the NHL. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 18:23:10
NBA is an interesting example, actually. Their success is getting hammered ever since the economy started tanking. Also you have teams taking tanking to new levels (have a look at the Nets season, for example). Not to mention skyrocketing salaries, lowering attendance figures and fairly lackluster management. Interesting to know that David Stern is Bettman's biggest idol, but I digress.
One thing that is saving the NBA's bacon is the tv deal. Luckily for them it was signed before these disturbing trends started occuring. Also, NBA's marketing plan has been infinitely more effective than the NHL. One thing they do is highlight a 'star' from each team to hype matchups. "Kobe vs Lebron Saturday night on TNT!". Simple and catchy. Hockey doesn't do this really past Crosby/Ovechkin. I'm not advocating following the NBA model exactly, but at least try different things. It's true that the NHL is rising and the NBA sinking, but these same things were being said in 1994 as well.
The advantage hockey has is that teams almost never completely mail in games like sometimes happens in the NBA. Also, the end of close basketball games has to be the worst to watch as a fan. 75 timeouts for both teams, instant fouls and tons of boredom. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 14:54:44
Well now we can argue the areas Bettman is actually responsible for! Finally. This only took 2 days.
Now, as far as a marketing perspective, the NHL is horrible, and that is under Gary's world. The league focus is nearly exclusively in markets that are already established and very little if any in markets where the game was hot and is now not or in other struggling areas.
However, let's ensure we are accurate in regards to where the NHL sits in the 4 pro sports of North America.
Here is an article from November of last year. Pretty interesting stuff in regards to the NBA vs NHL attendance and specifically when looking at certain markets who have had traditionally had strong NBA support.
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-vs-NBA-Hockey-winning-in-attendance-fan-e?urn=nhl,123904
Here is another. This is interested to see that the NHL attendance has increased the past 2 years while the NBA's has decreased. Watch any NBA highlights and you should be shocked at the number of empty seats.
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/nba-versus-nhl-again.html
It's also hard to see positive things on the TV deals. Using the NBA as a comparison again, they are looking at declines in attendance yet still have a $2.4 billion/6 year deal($400 million a year). Assuming that attendance is an indication of popularity, if the NHL is increase and catching up to the NBA, why are the TV dollars not matching???
There are definately glaring areas of Bettman's management that can be questions. Marketing and TV deals are definately some of the biggest. I know if I was an owner, I would have a higher expectation in those areas. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 13:23:01
This entire thing got derailed when I took Beans' comments to mean that Bettman is powerless and a puppet of the owners and the its the owners who should absorb most of the blame, since they hired him. Naturally this is insane, so I went off, and we got bogged down in semantics. His 'dont point a single finger at Bettman' comment stood out as the most asinine, although this thread has had ridiculous comments made on both sides. Some comments from me are pretty terrible from me as well, looking back.
What I should have just done is ignore Bean's nit-picking, and instead focussed on all the retarded crap Bettman's done that no one can argue. Like when he entered the league hockey was catching up to the NBA as #3 out of the 4 major North American sports leagues, in terms of popularity. Now its a distant 4th. Hockey's tv contract is around $120 million (NFL's is 2.2 billion), and isn't on a major US network. Which is completely inexcusable. As a commish you have to MAKE SURE your sport can be seen by fans in all markets if you want to grow the game. Doesn't matter if you make a little less money up front, you have to get that done. $120 mill is peanuts, even for the NHL, after all. Let's not even get into the horrid NHL marketing campaigns, and Bettman letting the trap ruin hockey until the 2005 lockout, and locking out the league, twice.
The NHL constitution link is pretty interesting, actually. Bettman's powers aren't as black-and white as you might expect. I particularly found interesting that if there is a disagreement between members/clubs/players or any combination, Bettman acts as the arbitrater and all decisions are final. If an owner chooses to appeal, he needs 3/4 of the board to agree with him to overturn the decision. This was shown recently when he forced the two Tampa owners to an ultimatum where one had to buy the other out to sort out the madness. That to me stood out as Bettman being far from 'powerless'. But you guys are right, Bettman can't receive 100% of the blame, so instead we should give him 0% of it for everything that needs board approval. Cool.
Similarly, the commissioner is in charge of leading expansion and relocation attempts. He was recently meeting with the Quebec premier to discuss bringing that franchise back. I'm not sure why most of you think all 30 owners sit in a room and go 'ok chaps where do we command Bettman to move this team now?" and they all laugh and clang wine glasses'. There is significant disagreement between all 30 owners on probably every topic there is. Who brings it all together? The commissioner, as he should.
Not everything he's done has been bad, and I've pointed out some of the positives. He has kept his job because apparently the owners of the respective teams have much lower expectations than I do for my favourite league moving forward. Among his skills, job retention is probably his best. I'm still not convinced a monkey doing the same job wouldn't have similar results, though, since hockey really is the world's best sport to watch, and it should be easy to get people coming back once they've been to an NHL game.
|
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 11:29:55
wow what a topic...
After reading through and digesting everything, i've gotta side with beans a bit on this.
Huge Erection, if that is your real name, you make some very interesting points and offer some very valid arguements but really it does boil down to what beans is saying...
The owners are obviously very happy with the job Gb is doing and quite frankly, I think hockey is better today than it was 10 years ago, regardless if a couple teams are in trouble or not. I dont its even possible to have a league with all of its teams in perfect health....
No one has even mentioned that Bettman really did alot to save the teams in edmonton, ottawa and calgary.
I know I didnt contribute much here, im just not into the business side as heavily as you guys
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 10:20:53
Bettman never owened the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL owned ths Coyotes. And that purchase facilitied the futher sale to Ice Edge Holdings who now own the Coyotes.
Even if Bettman did own the Coyotes, that is only 1 of 30 votes. |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 10:05:00
By owning the Coyotes is bettman now part of the 30 person Board? or is it just a 29 person board at the moment. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 00:46:28
Here is a very interesting article I found from 1993. The entire link is below, but here is a very interesting exerpt which I believe is quite fitting.
His inauguration didn't include a swearing-in ceremony or an inspirational poem, but it was just as important to the progressive constituency of owners who hired him after 15 years of the muddled regime of former President John Ziegler. His 'Do' List
Bettman's mission is simple: Put a stop to labor unrest; sell the product in television's mainstream marketplace; change the violent image of the game; curb salary inflation; force enlightened self-interest on reluctant, old-fashioned owners; expand contacts with European developmental leagues and markets; settle the divisive issue of possible Olympic involvement, and help launch several new expansion teams.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/02/sports/hockey-opening-day-for-nhl-s-first-commissioner.html
Here is the NHL constitution. I would be surprised if the time was actually take to read through it, even breifly. However, many of the Highlights are in the first 5 pages, where it talks specifically about the roles and responsibilities of Board of Directors as well as Membership to the league.
The next interesting part is on page 19 which specifically talks about the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner.
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/0e/bf/faddf06240c5bf8d958eb8855bec.pdf
|
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 00:33:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7629
bettman proved to me this last summer he really only cares about the u.s franchises. Basille put a great offer up for phoenix and was denied simply because he wanted to move to canada. it seems to me that when that same frachise was in winnipeg bettman was all to willing to endorse a move to american soil. he really shows his true colours and they aren't red and white hockey fans.
I think that if Ballsille had done what Bettman had wanted him to do then he would have gotten his way, but the fact is that Ballsille just tried to come in and say "Im buying the team and moving it" no ifs ands or butts. Regardless of how much money one has it does not give you the right to walk in a break the rules. And that wasn't only Bettmans decision, but the courts and the board of governers who voted on the situation.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 00:32:51
OK, let's talk about the Pirate Ship.
1) The Captain does not call the direction. The Oarmen do. The Captain only steers the ship in the direction the majortiy of the Oarman agree upon.
2) The Captain has no choice in the direction. If the ship is steering towards an iceberg, the Captain does have the obligation to warn the Oarman if he sees the iceberg. But, if they decide to not change the couse, the Captain has to stay the course the Oarman decide. The Captain can suggest a route, and only if the Oarman agree can the Captain go that direction.
3) The Captain can not decide when to throw an Oarman overboard or to move Oarmen around the boat. He can't make any major decision without the majority of the Oarmen's support.
4) As long as most of the Oarmen are getting their share of women and rum, they will continue to trust the Captains ability to steer in the direction they have told him to go. He has negotiated some dark waters and storms in the past and each time the Oarmen come out with more Rum and more Women.
Which ever way you want to pose the argument, the result is the same. This is not a situation where we can agree to disagree. Simply, the conclusion of facts is wrong. Bettman does not control the NHL. The Owners do. Bettman only runs the day to day. Again, Marketing, Rules, discipline, etc. He only does their bidding. The blame is not his exclusively and ultimately, it on the Owners more so than it's on Bettman. |
| Guest4651 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 23:27:50
Bettman is in Winnipeg tonight and there is a announcement expected tomorrow, on another note the Manitoba Moose have stop production on all Moose gear. Could this mean a team in Winnipeg!!! the rumors are rampant |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 23:01:17
A pirate ship?
Why am I having so much trouble envisioning a Bettman-Depp hybrid standing amidship, swilling rum and barking orders at the oarsmen/owners? Must be my lack of imagination.
I appreciate the analogy and I think all of us whom you seem to see as opponents to your stance, get what you are saying. I even agree with a lot of what you allude to, the only point I am trying to get across is that the owners do have some responsibility for the league's direction, be it 1% or 100%, they have some responsibility, that's it. Really...
My PS. How Elvis died is irrelevant, I chose my handle due to my love of music and as a tongue-in-cheek homage to the King of Rock and Roll....I am only assuming you chose yours for similar reasons? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 21:33:27
Arrrrrrrrr........I thought pirate ships be sailed, not rowed??
Hugh, you're still arguing the same points that have been covered. Who cares if it's Bettman who suggests or proposes an idea? If the 30 members of the board of governors agree/accept it, it's equal blame!!! If a majority rules and there's lets say for arguments sake, 5 owners opposed to a new idea, then the blame is spread equally between those who voted with Bettman, and Bettman himself!!!
I don't know how you can't see what Beans has been trying to say??? I think it's time for you to walk the plank matey, and let this thing die.  |
| irvine |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 20:59:16
I have to side with Beans here.
Beans is NOT saying that Bettman does not 'lead the charge' or produce most of the ideas that the Governing Body vote upon. He's simply saying that, if the Board does not AGREE with the proposals at hand... they simply vote against those ideas.
So, as Beans has said, numerous times, if you aren't happy with certain things... perhaps placing some blame on the NHL Owners is also required. As ultimately, they decide. Bettman may generate the idea, present the idea and even campaign the idea... but at the end of the day, it does not have to happen. UNLESS, the Board agree to it. So unless Mr. Bettman has photos of all these guys, cheating on their wives... i'm guessing they vote how they see fit.
Irvine/prez. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 20:55:29
Sigh. Ok one last time. We'll try to make it, I promise.
I'll use my last analogy, because none of the previous seem to have gotten through. Let's pretend the NHL is a big pirate ship. It has a captain and 30 rowman, all with their own oars. The captain was elected from all the rowman, and is in charge of plotting the courses and steering the ship.
The rowman are in charge of manning their individual oars. Each rowman is of course primarily concerned with their own oar, but has a general interest in the ship sailing faster, to acquire more treasure and plunder more lands. The ship has had good years and bad, and on two memorable occasions broke down entirely for repairs. This has been ok with the rowman, as their oars had a layer of polish on them that wasn't there before.
Now what happens if the entire damn ship is sailing into an iceberg? The rowman could have stopped the captain if enough agreed, but all were much too concerned with their own oars to see the big picture. I might blame them somewhat, but I'd probably blame the damn captain who ordered the course and didn't change directions when it became blatantly obvious he should have to.
The problem I have with this opposing view is that NO commissioner could be blamed for league problems requiring owner approval. Doesn't matter if they invented the idea, lead the negotiations and saw the entire process through. (Which Bettman has done for all the big decisions during his term).
Somehow the guys who rubber stamp it are more to blame? Aye Caramba.
P.S. Fat Elvis didn't 'rock', he died from overdosing on Barbiturates.
|
| Guest7629 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 20:33:18
bettman proved to me this last summer he really only cares about the u.s franchises. Basille put a great offer up for phoenix and was denied simply because he wanted to move to canada. it seems to me that when that same frachise was in winnipeg bettman was all to willing to endorse a move to american soil. he really shows his true colours and they aren't red and white hockey fans. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 20:20:22
"A great many people go through life in ignorance, whether it be unintentional or a chosen ignorance, life is bliss for them as they have little cause for pause."
My apologies to Willus3 if this is his quote, and my thanks if it is someone else's. He used it in another thread and there are times when a great quote is fitting, this being one of them....
Smile on Stiffy...smile on, you must be....blissfully happy.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 19:20:12
Wow, somebody please end this. I've avoided commenting mainly because i don't follow the business side of the game as much as i do the game itself. Yeah, there's times i comment on some of the decisions made but i tend to stay away from threads like this and the long winded Balsillie (sorry Mr. Grammar if if that name is not correct as far as spelling goes?) one from a few months back??
Regardless, Hugh, in your last reply, you said "If you want to argue that the owners deserve some of the blame, I'll agree, but the majority has to go to the commissioner. That's just how it is.". Is this not what Beans has been arguing the entire time? Yeah, he went off on numbers as did you going off on different lines of arguments but originally, in this thread AND OTHERS where he's defended Bettman's employment, it's always been about him not taking ALL of the blame? What i don't agree with, is that the "majority has to go to the commissioner"? How is that possible when it has to go through ALL of the owners? I don't care how ludicrous an idea is, if it's accepted by a bunch of rich owners, it's as much, if not MORE, their blame! |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 17:01:05
quote:
You realize that requiring board approval and leading the charge for expansion/relocation aren’t mutually exclusive, right? You can do both, as Bettman has. He is armed with a mandate from these same owners to make the big decisions. The extent to which can be debated, but there is no denying he is the biggest individual contributor.
Just because he needs board approval for the big stuff doesn't mean he doesn't come up with the original ideas himself, and isn't ultimately leading the charge. It's akin to the Prime Minister introducing the bills, and requiring his own party to ultimately pass the legislation.
quote:
I agree with you whole heartedly. Bettman is the single biggest contributor.
quote:
All I have always said is that you can not point an single finger at Gary Bettman.
What??? Unless your point is that the league is perfectly healthy, this makes no sense, at all. If you want to argue that the owners deserve some of the blame, I'll agree, but the majority has to go to the commissioner. That's just how it is.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 16:22:07
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
"Right from the start. All I have always said is that you can not point an single finger at Gary Bettman. If you are passing the blame, pass it 31 times. Bettman for tabling the idea, and the 30 members of the Board of Governors for accepting it. "
Hey!
I understood your point when you first made it eons ago, in another similar thread....
Guess my comprehension must be just fine!!!
PS. I double checked the spelling of comprehension, don't want Mr. Boner giving me the stink eye!
For the Siskel and Eberts of Pickuphockey, who feel the need to critique most posts;
16 years, man they should have fired Frodo a long time ago.....but they didn't. Guess that's what happens when he follows through with his employer's expectations, funny how that works.
By all means, get your hate on for wee man, I don't blame anyone for not liking the dude, he is what he is, but if the league is in as bad of shape as you say, save some for the Board too....
The vote to say no to Ballsillie for example, was unanimous amongst the owners. Either the birth certificate reads, Gary Unanimous Bettman, or that particular decision was made very clearly by those who make the real decisions...
You may be absolutely right, another Comissioner may make things better, but for 16 years, the powers that be, haven't thought so. Doesn't that carry a bigger weight, regarding who is doing the wrongs you mention?
Kinda makes sense to me. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 15:14:45
I won't waste my time reading through Slozo's soapbox gibberish. I understood it the first time I read it. Secondly, I agree with you whole heartedly. Bettman is the single biggest contributor. However, that does not mean he has any authority. He can only take what he feels is best to the Board. If they agree, he proceeds. If they disagree, he can not. If he did progress against the Boards authority, not only would he be fired but he could face criminal charges as well.
That has been my entire point. Right from the start. All I have always said is that you can not point an single finger at Gary Bettman. If you are passing the blame, pass it 31 times. Bettman for tabling the idea, and the 30 members of the Board of Governors for accepting it.
Finally, I regret posting the financial information as I think it clouded my original opinion. Although I posted the facts as they were presented, the point obviously was missed. All I was trying to say is that in the world of business, when you show profit and progress, rarely does it lead to dismissal. If the NHL was not about business, this discussion takes a totally different direction. But, at the end of the day, money talks and that other stuff walks. Obviously the Board is fine with GB's performance or he would not have been there for 16 years and he would not still be there. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 14:39:09
Sigh. Re-read Slozo's post. For someone who was 'done' a while ago you seem to have found a second wind. For the record, it’s spelled 'commissioner'. I let it slide originally but my tendency to freak on spelling errors got the better of me. Just a heads up.
It’s become apparent to me you aren’t listening to what we have to say at all, or are actually convinced your argument is valid, so I’ll destroy whatever limb of the tree is left you’re standing on.
These aren’t my words, and I’ve taken the liberty of bolding the key passages:
quote:
“When Bettman entered the league in 1993, the NHL had just become a 24-team league with the addition of the Tampa Bay Lightning and Ottawa Senators. Thanks in large part to the commissioner's efforts, that number has increased to 30 today with franchises in places never thought feasible.”
On the phoenix coyotes situation:
quote:
Two suitors have withdrawn their bids for the team, both of which would have, in some form, kept the Coyotes in Arizona. The bidding is now between Bettman, who is stubbornly refusing to allow the team to escape his grasp; and Balsillie, who wants to move the team to Hamilton, Ont.
You realize that requiring board approval and leading the charge for expansion/relocation aren’t mutually exclusive, right? You can do both, as Bettman has. He is armed with a mandate from these same owners to make the big decisions. The extent to which can be debated, but there is no denying he is the biggest individual contributor.
Regardless of how large a role he plays, it’s his responsibility and his butt on the line. If you would like another set of examples, go ahead. Or just admit you’re wrong and we can turn this thread back into bashing Bettman.
|
| Guest4339 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 14:29:51
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4339
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
As I have said, I am done. I have stated the information and argued my point. You don't have to agree with it and rip it to shreds if you wish. If you want to say numbers mean nothing in business, that's fine. It's completely wrong and ridiculous(IMO), but you have the right to that opinion. If you feel big and bad to call someone down for their reading comprehension or lack there of, so be it. If you think I am a moron and feel you have to share this with everyone, by all means continue. The relevance of it to the argument is nil and it speaks for itself when one throws personal shots in a debate/argument.
I guess those businessmen who currently own the NHL teams, far wealthier than any of us, just sit back and let this incompetent fool waste all their money for nearly the past 2 decades. Especially when they have the power to terminate him at any time they see fit.
They are all the morons and it's everyone else who are the smart ones.
Wow heated discussions...
Just wanted to re-iterate a point that I agree with Beans here:
If Bettman is doing such a horrible job, why are the owners keeping him around?
Regardless of the actual numbers, look at the actions of the owners: if the league is getting worse, Bettman would be tossed. He's still around so that suggests either the league is improving or the owners believe that the league will improve.
There are some signs that show that at least hockey is gaining traction in the US. In 2002, 17.1M Americans watched the US-Canada Gold medal game when it was in the US. The Sunday US-Canada Gold medal game peaked at 34.8M (more than the population of Canada).
You ask whether this will matter as long as Bettman is around, yet this happened during his term.
Like Beans, I'm by no means a Bettman fan, but you can't fault him for everything. There were definitely things that went wrong (such as the labour stoppages, as you mentioned), but the owners and Bettman are smart people.
It's also hard to make the argument that the owners really don't care about losing "only" a few million dollars, since they are rich.
If you had an asset, that say took $20 from you every month and you believed the asset manager was making horrible decisions. Now maybe $20 won't bankrupt you (hopefully), but wouldn't you either get rid of the asset manager or at the least get rid of the asset? You're saying you would go "meh" and keep going.
I should have done a better job replying since I quoted Beans but was directing it towards Hugh, if you haven't noticed. |
| Guest4339 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 14:28:20
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
As I have said, I am done. I have stated the information and argued my point. You don't have to agree with it and rip it to shreds if you wish. If you want to say numbers mean nothing in business, that's fine. It's completely wrong and ridiculous(IMO), but you have the right to that opinion. If you feel big and bad to call someone down for their reading comprehension or lack there of, so be it. If you think I am a moron and feel you have to share this with everyone, by all means continue. The relevance of it to the argument is nil and it speaks for itself when one throws personal shots in a debate/argument.
I guess those businessmen who currently own the NHL teams, far wealthier than any of us, just sit back and let this incompetent fool waste all their money for nearly the past 2 decades. Especially when they have the power to terminate him at any time they see fit.
They are all the morons and it's everyone else who are the smart ones.
Wow heated discussions...
Just wanted to re-iterate a point that I agree with Beans here:
If Bettman is doing such a horrible job, why are the owners keeping him around?
Regardless of the actual numbers, look at the actions of the owners: if the league is getting worse, Bettman would be tossed. He's still around so that suggests either the league is improving or the owners believe that the league will improve.
There are some signs that show that at least hockey is gaining traction in the US. In 2002, 17.1M Americans watched the US-Canada Gold medal game when it was in the US. The Sunday US-Canada Gold medal game peaked at 34.8M (more than the population of Canada).
You ask whether this will matter as long as Bettman is around, yet this happened during his term.
Like Beans, I'm by no means a Bettman fan, but you can't fault him for everything. There were definitely things that went wrong (such as the labour stoppages, as you mentioned), but the owners and Bettman are smart people.
It's also hard to make the argument that the owners really don't care about losing "only" a few million dollars, since they are rich.
If you had an asset, that say took $20 from you every month and you believed the asset manager was making horrible decisions. Now maybe $20 won't bankrupt you (hopefully), but wouldn't you either get rid of the asset manager or at the least get rid of the asset? You're saying you would go "meh" and keep going. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:40:34
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh G. Rection
Sigh, your strawman arguments are becoming annoying. Where did I say numbers are irrelevant to business? Lets keep this reasonable.
You never said this, Slozo did. He alos brought up the reading comprehension point. My apologies if you feel this was directed towards you. It was not. You were the one who just don't like the numbers and bring in the fact that the economy is bad and will impact things in the future. I get your point. I still don't agree that Bettman has any control over either of those things but I do understand what you are saying.
As far as my strawman arguement, my facts are black and white and I can back them up.
Where is your facts that says Bettman has more control over the NHL than I think??? Prove it.
League business as to day to day operations, marketing, rules, disciple and the likes I have stated many, many times is the Commishioners responsibility. If you wish to attack that stuff, go ahead. I really wouldn't argue much.
However, the things that people blame him for the most (relocation of teams, expansion, etc) are 100% the responsibility of the Board of Directors.
Even if Bettmans was a cutthroat business man who said that all teams posting a lose needed to relocate or fold, he doesn't have that power.
When speaking about comprehension, that is the area that most people don't comprehend.
|
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:21:58
Sigh, your strawman arguments are becoming annoying. Where did I say numbers are irrelevant to business? Lets keep this reasonable.
I poked holes in both your 'information' and your argument. I don't have an opinion on whether or not you're a moron, but I find this particular argument rather moronic. When you are engaging in debate and the other side isn't comprehending or ignoring obvious statements, then comprehension becomes an issue.
I agree with you when you said owners are much richer than you or me, but that's all I agree with. Their wealth is almost always outside of their hockey team. The team is not their primary source of income, which is probably why they don't concern themselves to the extent they should with running the league. If a billionaire loses $5 million here or there its not a big deal. Losses in one business can someone offset other business ventures anyways. Despite what you think, most league business is left in the Commish's hands. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:11:35
As I have said, I am done. I have stated the information and argued my point. You don't have to agree with it and rip it to shreds if you wish. If you want to say numbers mean nothing in business, that's fine. It's completely wrong and ridiculous(IMO), but you have the right to that opinion. If you feel big and bad to call someone down for their reading comprehension or lack there of, so be it. If you think I am a moron and feel you have to share this with everyone, by all means continue. The relevance of it to the argument is nil and it speaks for itself when one throws personal shots in a debate/argument.
I guess those businessmen who currently own the NHL teams, far wealthier than any of us, just sit back and let this incompetent fool waste all their money for nearly the past 2 decades. Especially when they have the power to terminate him at any time they see fit.
They are all the morons and it's everyone else who are the smart ones.
|
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 11:05:35
Well said Slozo. I was going to go on a mega-rant vs. Beans and his ludicrous position that Bettman has no actual power or influence, and thus can't be judged negatively if the league is failing. But you took most of the words out of my response, so instead it will be a slightly lesser mega rant.
Beans, I also not only pointed out why the numbers you posted could be wrong, but also that EVEN if they were 100% accurate they are misleading.
First you said: quote:
You can deny the numbers if you wish. I never said anyone has to think anything specific about them. If you choose to think they are misleading, than so be it.
Immediately followed by: quote:
All I know is that in the world of business, numbers are really the only thing that matters. When numbers are improving, Leadership is not often released.
Multiple posts have pointed out the flaws in the numbers you posted. So your point is, that while the numbers you posted may not be accurate or indicative of reality, that they are the only thing that matters? And that is what Bettman should be judged on? Seriously? Reading these two claims back to back was too much.
You go onto say: quote:
That black cloud on the horizon will have it's negative impact regardless who the Commishioner is....
This is patently false. If we had a progressive Commissioner that actually accepted the reality things arent working, then maybe the league would be exploring other options (feasability studies for relocating franchises, experimenting with different marketing techniques, NOT buying out bankrupt franchises, etc.).
At the very least, preparing for times to worsen, not improve. It's not a sustainable model if the league can't withstand economic hard times and certain franchises rely on revenue sharing just to survive.
You contend he's doing a 'reasonable job' but my entire point is that he hasn't. If the bar is really set so low that his performance is considered 'reasonable' then we need to rethink the whole organization.
Bettman sucks. |
| Axey |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 10:30:31
Without reading any posts because I am in a rush, I think Milwaukee deserves an explansion team. In the US during the gold medal game they were the 5th highest viewer-per-household percentage in the states.
"The top five metropolitan markets in the U.S. in terms of viewership were: Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Minneapolis-St.Paul and Milwaukee." |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 10:08:16
Beans - are you not reading Hugh's words? Or is there some reading comprehension issue? I am not trying to be trite, but . . . it's at a ridiculous point here.
Hugh:Even if we take the numbers as a given, I maintain that the data you selected is misleading. The downturn did not affect league revenues in 2008. It is having a disastrous effect on the league today. Michigan is such a disaster that homes in Detroit are listed as low as $24,000 for a 4 bedroom house. You are going to tell me these same people are going to catch a Wings game? The entire country has seen a substantial loss in disposable income. Going to a hockey game/buying merchandise/buying NHL centre ice is the definition of disposable income.
If you are actually arguing the NHL should try to maintain its current 30-team structure that's fairly preposterous. Holding onto failing franchises for too long is a surefire way to bankrupt the franchises that are actually making money and ruining the league altogether.
No one is blaming the weather on Bettman, by the way. But there is a rather nasty black cloud on the horizon and he's not getting out the umbrella.
Beans: SO again, the down turn in the economy is Bettman's fault. He doesn't control the world here Hugh.
I sit here scratching my head, Beans. NO ONE blamed the economy on Bettman - so put away your strawman argument.
But as pointed out by Hugh (and quite adroitly, I might add), Bettman has had zero foresight and zero ability to react to changing financial times, and whether he has been actively directed to do so (I doubt it) or whether he has guided the many-headed board of governors (my contention) doesn't matter - his retarded business sense has robbed the NHL of millions and millions of dollars of revenue.
And a quick lesson in business: numbers are most certainly NOT what matters, not really. Only when the numbers reflect reality perfectly do they help . . . but this is rare. Numbers for public consumption (what is released to us, and Forbes is full of s*** most of the time, respected journal or not) are just that - feel good news generators.
Look at what the NFL did in preperation for these times and what they have done in terms of failing teams, better markets, etc. If you want to look at a successful sports franchise, they are #1 and everyone could learn from them.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 09:18:39
SO again, the down turn in the economy is Bettman's fault. He doesn't control the world here Hugh.
You can deny the numbers if you wish. I never said anyone has to think anything specific about them. If you choose to think they are misleading, than so be it.
All I know is that in the world of business, numbers are really the only thing that matters. When numbers are improving, Leadership is not often released.
That black cloud on the horizon will have it's negative impact regardless who the Commishioner is....
I'm done. I got nothing else to say. I think Fat Elvis said it best. I don't personally like Bettman and I don't think he is a great rep of the game of hockey. But in the end, the job he is doing is reasonably effective and the Board of Governors the the one's controlling the NHL. You don't like it, blame them. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 07:20:57
I assumed you used Forbes data. Keep in mind single NHL teams are not publicly traded, and thus there is only so much certainty you should place on these figures. To use an extreme example, even publicly traded companies like Enron had some pretty solid financial indicators a few years back, and look at how that ended up.
Just like it was revealed that teams were buying up unbought tickets just so they would meet the minimum requirements for the league's revenue sharing program. Do these figures show up on your data? I bet they show up as profit. Ottawa is one team that was extensively doing this to artificially increase attendance figures. Phoenix and Atlanta are also notorious for doing this, as many times they announce "10, 000 attendaces" and have maybe 4 thousand people actually in the building.
Also promotions tend to skew the data, as most analysts will take ticket price x attendance= gate revenue. If the league runs a 50% off sale, this is often left off. Many people don't trust owners to fully disclose the proper figures, and the NHLPA revealed several accounting errors in the last CBA on many franchises.
Even if we take the numbers as a given, I maintain that the data you selected is misleading. The downturn did not affect league revenues in 2008. It is having a disastrous effect on the league today. Michigan is such a disaster that homes in Detroit are listed as low as $24,000 for a 4 bedroom house. You are going to tell me these same people are going to catch a Wings game? The entire country has seen a substantial loss in disposable income. Going to a hockey game/buying merchandise/buying NHL centre ice is the definition of disposable income.
If you are actually arguing the NHL should try to maintain its current 30-team structure that's fairly preposterous. Holding onto failing franchises for too long is a surefire way to bankrupt the franchises that are actually making money and ruining the league altogether.
No one is blaming the weather on Bettman, by the way. But there is a rather nasty black cloud on the horizon and he's not getting out the umbrella. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 06:49:15
I didn't use a stitch of NHL data. The financial numbers from from Forbes, the attendance figures from ESPN, and the ticket price information comes from the team marketing report.
The numbers don't lie. If you want, I will post every one of the links and you can check the numbers again, but I will tell you right now, they are dead on.
I am not cherry picking anything. What I posted are key financial indicators for any organisation. Profit, revenue, debt load, customer base, product value. There is no voodoo magic here.
Deny it if you want, but from an owners perspective, it's pretty hard to drive a nail into that coffin.
Finally, closing plants or moving plants is rarely a good thing and is most often done as an absolute last resort. Just ask GM or Ford. Again, it's really easy for a fan to say, "They are losing money, drop them." Consider this:
St. Louis ($28.8 loss), Anaheim ($22.4 loss), Carolina($18.2 loss), Detroit ($16.4 loss), Washington ($14.7 loss).
Those 5 teams combined for more loss in 2003 than the entire league did in 2008.
Why didn't those teams get dropped off the map?? Why were these teams not forced to move??
Damn Bettman, let's blame him for everything. It's foggy in Edmonton today, I think Bettman did it! |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 06:17:57
Beans, for one the actual numbers that NHL teams report are always contested from the media/NHLPA for accuracy. I'm not sure what source you used, but it helps to be skeptical of conclusive numbers you see reported. Also, I enjoy how you cherry-picked your stats so that they are more impressive. 2008 was indeed the end of the 'good times' economically. Surely you don't think the 2003-2008 trend is continuing today? Or do you? Did you include the estimated $12 mill the Islanders lost this year? Or the $25-$35 million the Coyotes are projected to drop? (by the way, the whole league pays for that mess). Let's see your numbers now.
Let's keep in mind as well that most GM's are extremely tied up economically and don't have any wiggle room. Doug Mclean, former Columbus GM, estimated that unless teams have $90 annual revenue then its incredibly difficult to operate them effectively. Considering the salary cap is nearly half of that number, I'd agree that it's a fairly conservative estimate by him. Even under your 2008 numbers only 15 teams, or half the league makes at least this much.
In a sports league such as the NHL, a massive source of annual revenue is the season-ticket income. So even though the economy started tanking around the same time as the numbers you posted, NHL teams had a 'buffer' zone. Because so many fans drop down their cash before the season even started. Now that time has passed we will see the true toll that the economic downturn has on hockey. Fewer people will renew their season tickets, the fact that 4k or less people go to a game in Phoenix and etc. will start adding up.
As I mentioned, there are some good signs for hockey. The on-ice product is better than ever. Players are younger, faster and more skilled. The game is attracting more fans, and should enjoy a nice boost from the great Olympics tournament (although not on TV ratings if the people dont have Comcast). They have a CBA in place which makes for alot of league parity, which includes more fan bases excited about the playoff than before.
I don't drink Bettman's Kool aid, though. I can personally say the Senators are going to have big big problems going forward, and if they are struggling then what about 3/4 of the US southern teams? To follow with my CEO example, what kind of leader wouldn't close the 'plants' which consistently lost money? Or tried to move them somewhere where they might actually turn a profit? Bad management. |
| Guest4271 |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 22:32:08
How much do you want to bet that Bettman was somehow involved with that whole glowing puck thing from a decade or so back. remember that, passes were blue, shots were red. Somebody thought that if you added a few pretty lights they'd be able to get more americans to watch, lmao....
In all seriousness, i remember seeing somewhere that bettman and the owners did not like Balsillie because he was too arrogant, pompous, and didn't know his place.... (not a direct quote obviously, but that's the jist of what they were saying). Apparently Bettman has to be the only giant bobblehead in the room.... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 21:08:28
Ok Hugh, there is something very flawed in your analogy.
You cite that your company has dropping stock value, unhappy customers, and losses are piling up.
Here's the actual information on the NHL comparing 2003/04 to 2007/08. 5 years later if you will.
2003
Total Value of All Teams in the NHL : $4.900 billion
Average Value of an NHL Team : $175 million
Total League Profits : ($96) million (that's a loss!)
Total League Attendance : 20,406,393
Average Ticket Price : $43.57 US
Total League Revenues : $2.2 billion
Total League Debt : $1.3 billion
2008
Total Value of All Teams in the NHL : $6.677 billion
Average Value of an NHL Team : $222 million
Total League Profits : $183 million (that's not a loss anymore)
Total League Attendance : 21,288,601
Average Ticket Price : $49.66 US
Total League Revenues : $2.8 billion
Total League Debt : $1.3 billion
So I am the Chairman of the Board. I look back at performance for the past 5 years and see that under the current leadership, I am wealthier as the value of my business has grown by $2 Billion(that's with a 'B'), I am making a profit compared to a loss,I have more customers, and I am charging them more for my product. Oh, and I am carrying the same debt as before so I have done all this without taking more money out of my pocket.
In 2003 I have 30 plants, 17 are losing money(-$165 million) and 13 are making money ($69.6 million).
In 2008, I have the same 30 plants, but now 14 are losing money (-$84 million) and 16 are making money ($267.8 million).
So I have fewer plants losing money, those that are losing money are losing less. I have more plants making money and those plants are making way more money.
Do you know what I become if I fired the current leadership??
Unemployed.
Simple answer to the question as to why Bettman has not been fired yet. He makes the rich people richer and the fans are growing.
Does anyone remember that story about the goose that laid the Golden Eggs??
|
|
|
