FlyerFan
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2005
- 221
- 0
gscarpenter2002 said:You know, I have never heard a single cogent reason put forward by the anti-Bettman morons who frequented the board during the lockout and more recently (since the return of the NHL has been a success) don't say s**t.
What the **** is a "hockey man"? Are you a "hockey man", Weeb? What about you, NYRMessier? Do either of you have the faintest idea what you even mean when you throw around that hoary old phrase? Do you need to have played in the NHL to be a "hockey man"? Played pro hockey? Played pond hockey growing up? Played ball hockey? If there isn't a playing requirement, how many hours do you need to have watched? 50? 100? 1000? At what number of hours do you turn into a "hockey man"?
I have read this crap once too often. There are a number of hockey fans who still think of Bettman as a "basketball guy". What an utter load of horses**t. Any time Bettman is interviewed, he demonstrates a full command of what is going on in the sport, both economically and as a sport. According to some morons, they try to paint a p[icture where he doesn't know anything about the sport.
I am willing to bet that he watches more hockey than any person who posts on this board. How do I know this, you ask? I have no proof. However, I have the exact same amount of proof of the anti-Bettman morons who suggest he does not know the sport. In fact, I actually have more, since he always demonstrates knowledge of the sport when interviewed. So my version of the facts is more supported than any twit who says he knows nothing.
The bottom line is that Bettman is a steward of the BUISINESS of hockey, not the SPORT of hockey.