E.J. Hradek comments on ESPN: Bettman wanted to go higher on the cap number

[Hockeyfan02]

Two Original Six franchises trying to keep a lid on things. It is very plausible.

Its two cheap owners who dont want to spend any more money on their clubs. I'm not labeling the other owners who may have nixed this rumored proposal this, but these two have earned their reputations as being cheap owners in the past. I wouldnt be surprised if the rumor was true and these two were part of a group that nixed the deal.

 

[Tekneek]

Its two cheap owners who dont want to spend any more money on their clubs. I'm not labeling the other owners who may have nixed this rumored proposal this, but these two have earned their reputations as being cheap owners in the past. I wouldnt be surprised if the rumor was true and these two were part of a group that nixed the deal.

I realize now that my statement seems sarcastic, but I actually meant it was plausible. Bill Wirtz is the worst owner in the NHL. He is cheap, raises ticket prices through the roof, and makes no reasonable attempt to put together a winning organization.

 

[Digger12]

Right. I know that. Bettman only needs 8 guys to support him in that regard and if I was to go team by team I would think it is somewhere in the middle. At least the guys who are the ones playing hardball.

But if Bettman was really going to the owners asking their permission to offer a proposal of 45-46 million, that kinda implies that he wasn't against the proposal, doesn't it?

And if he isn't against it, then how could 8 owners block it?

I'm thinking it was a simple majority that told him no, not this 'death group' that some people (not you necessarily) seem to want to demonize.

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

Right. I know that. Bettman only needs 8 guys to support him in that regard and if I was to go team by team I would think it is somewhere in the middle. At least the guys who are the ones playing hardball.

If it was only 8-10 owners that wouldn't allow Bettman to go up to 46 million, there would be NHL hockey right now. Bettman only needed a simple majority to sign on any deal he approved. If Bettman disapproved of a deal, it would take 23 owners to overpower his wishes.

This writer is claiming that Bettman wanted to go higher and therefore would have approved 46 million. There would have had to be 23 owners to get in his way, not 8-10. The story is bogus. In short, Bettman approves = simple majority vote, Bettman disapproves = 23-7 vote to overpower him.

 

[PecaFan]

Bettman only needed a simple majority to sign on any deal he approved. If Bettman disapproved of a deal, it would take 23 owners to overpower his wishes.

I know some claim this, but I still think it's incorrect. I have never seen a definitive link saying there are two thresholds. There is only one threshold ever mentioned, and it's 75% (23 or 8, depending on the perspective)

I think some get confused because of the wording sometimes used "It only takes 8 owners to veto a deal", etc. Yes, because it takes 75% (23) to accept a deal. So if 8 don't like the deal, that means there aren't enough to approve it.

It makes no difference whether Gary approves or not, it doesn't pass until 23 vote for it. Yes, if Gary doesn't like a deal, he needs 8 on his side because without that, there'd be 23 that weren't on his side, and it would pass.

Note that Gary doesn't even get a vote. The last CBA was 17-9 approved, and there were 26 teams at the time.

 

[mackdogs*]

Any claim that any of these numbers between $42.5M and $49M were too high were from the idiots who probably can't afford to spend $30M on salaries.

So all small market owners are idiots because they own a team in a small market? Fascinating.

Does money grow on trees where you live? If so, where do you live?

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

I know some claim this, but I still think it's incorrect. I have never seen a definitive link saying there are two thresholds. There is only one threshold ever mentioned, and it's 75% (23 or 8, depending on the perspective)

I think some get confused because of the wording sometimes used "It only takes 8 owners to veto a deal", etc. Yes, because it takes 75% (23) to accept a deal. So if 8 don't like the deal, that means there aren't enough to approve it.

It makes no difference whether Gary approves or not, it doesn't pass until 23 vote for it. Yes, if Gary doesn't like a deal, he needs 8 on his side because without that, there'd be 23 that weren't on his side, and it would pass.

Note that Gary doesn't even get a vote. The last CBA was 17-9 approved, and there were 26 teams at the time.

Then why wouldn't it just be reported that any deal would need 3/4 support, either way. Why bother even mentioning the Bettman only needs 8 votes to veto. Bettman was the guy who requested this additional power because he was undercut last time by a group of owners. This way, all the power is in his hands. If he agrees to a deal, then great, let's all have a vote and majority takes it. If Bettman rejects an offer (like last time in 1994) it will take 23 of you SOB's to undercut me this time. This group of 8 to reject is just added protection for Bettman not to get undercut again.

So my understanding is still that...

Bettman likes it = simple majority

Bettman doesn't like it = Only needs 8 owners on his side.

 

[PecaFan]

Then why wouldn't it just be reported that any deal would need 3/4 support, either way.

Quite simple. Folks love to take a shot at Bettman. If you're anti-Gary, it's far more scathing to insinuate a "little dictator" forcing his will on the rest of the league, by having "only 8 owners" on his side.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I know some claim this, but I still think it's incorrect. I have never seen a definitive link saying there are two thresholds. There is only one threshold ever mentioned, and it's 75% (23 or 8, depending on the perspective)

I think some get confused because of the wording sometimes used "It only takes 8 owners to veto a deal", etc. Yes, because it takes 75% (23) to accept a deal. So if 8 don't like the deal, that means there aren't enough to approve it.

It makes no difference whether Gary approves or not, it doesn't pass until 23 vote for it. Yes, if Gary doesn't like a deal, he needs 8 on his side because without that, there'd be 23 that weren't on his side, and it would pass.

Note that Gary doesn't even get a vote. The last CBA was 17-9 approved, and there were 26 teams at the time.

Just one point......

"It makes no difference whether Gary approves or not"

"Note that Gary doesn't even get a vote."

It does make a difference, because unless Gary approves any deal never gets to a vote. Essentiall, he gets the first and most meaningful vote.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So my understanding is still that...

Bettman likes it = simple majority

Bettman doesn't like it = Only needs 8 owners on his side.

Correct you are. Essentially, even though Bettman does not have a vote, he carries the weight of 8 votes. 8 owners plus his weight=16, a majority.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Two Original Six franchises trying to keep a lid on things. It is very plausible.

Ummm no. More like 2 rich greedy owners trying to stuff their pant pockets.

 

[PecaFan]

It does make a difference, because unless Gary approves any deal never gets to a vote. Essentiall, he gets the first and most meaningful vote.

Riiiight. You think that if 28 owners like a deal, but Gary didn't, that it wouldn't get to a vote?

Dream on.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If there is any truth to the assertion then the Federal Mediation Services should pull both sides in and talk to them.

The goal of mediation is to work the middle ground and if it is still therer then it could be doable.

 

[Wetcoaster]

That is true, people forget 8 teams voted against the 1995 CBA. They why they put it in this time.

Actually all the leagues have done this now (a "super majority" to veto) according to reports I have read. The first to do it was the NBA.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Just one point......

"It makes no difference whether Gary approves or not"

"Note that Gary doesn't even get a vote."

It does make a difference, because unless Gary approves any deal never gets to a vote. Essentiall, he gets the first and most meaningful vote.

it does matter if he recommends against a deal then 8 owners voting "No" are sufficient to reject or put another way 23 voting yes get it done..

If he recommends the deal or talkes no position, then it is a majority vote. I believe in the case of a tie 15 to 15 he has the casting vote.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

it does matter if he recommends against a deal then 8 owners voting "No" are sufficient to reject or put another way 23 voting yes get it done..

If he recommends the deal or talkes no position, then it is a majority vote. I believe in the case of a tie 15 to 15 he has the casting vote.

Thanks you.

 

[GKJ]

So all small market owners are idiots because they own a team in a small market? Fascinating.

Does money grow on trees where you live? If so, where do you live?

No they're idiots because they don't know what they're doing. Some of the small payroll/small markets are working. Ask Columbus, Minnesota, and San Jose.


As far as coming up to this $46M, I would have thought that he was expecting Goodenow to make that offer which is why he didn't do it himself.

 

[Michalek]

No they're idiots because they don't know what they're doing. Some of the small payroll/small markets are working. Ask Columbus, Minnesota, and San Jose.

Columbus never made Play offs, Minesotta once , they both are loosing money. Tho 2 small markets are not working.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Columbus never made Play offs, Minesotta once , they both are loosing money. Tho 2 small markets are not working.

Minnesota is making money.

 

[GKJ]

Columbus never made Play offs, Minesotta once , they both are loosing money. Tho 2 small markets are not working.

Columbus sells out almost every game and Minnesota has sold out every game in their history. They're not working? I would like to see what your interperation of working markets then.


Keep in mind they are teams 4 years into their existance.

 

[Michalek]

I would like to see what your interperation of working markets then.


.[/QUOTE]
PROFITABLE

 

[GKJ]

PROFITABLE

Minnesota made the 2nd highest profit in the league last year only behind Vancouver.

 

[Michalek]

Minnesota made the 2nd highest profit in the league last year only behind Vancouver.

Can you back up your statment with any source ?

 

[PecaFan]

it does matter if he recommends against a deal then 8 owners voting "No" are sufficient to reject or put another way 23 voting yes get it done..

If he recommends the deal or talkes no position, then it is a majority vote. I believe in the case of a tie 15 to 15 he has the casting vote.

That's the claim. But still no supporting evidence of this supermajority/majority dichotomy.

 

[GKJ]

Can you back up your statment with any source ?

it should be common knowledge by now. You're the only one who doesn't think the Wild are a profitable franchise. You're the one who should be supporting evidence as to why St. Paul is not a viable market.