| Author |
 Topic  |
|
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
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". |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
Rookie
165 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Phevos
Top Prospect
3 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
bounty2k3
Top Prospect
Canada
33 Posts |
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!!! |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
baumer
Top Prospect
82 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gary Bettman Sucks 
