Bettman, 2nd worst sports commish ever

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by ohiohabsfan, Feb 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. ohiohabsfan

    ohiohabsfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Television
    Location:
    Ohio
    Home Page:
    This situation is a joke. Bettman and the owners want the players to save them from themselves.

    You want cost certainty, don't offer Bobby Holik 8 million dollars a year, or 7 million a year for the Tin Man.

    Other than Judge Landis, Bettman has to go down as the worst commish in sports history, leading the NHL into rapid expansion into useless US southern markets and presiding over the only full-season cancellation in major sports history.

    Nice effort.
     
  2. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Here's how I look at it.

    Bettman: Hired by the owners. Did everything the owners wanted. Made the league into a 2.1 billion dollar industry. Expanded hockey into a bigger sport. In terms of his objective, Bettman fulfilled his part to the owners. As for the game itself, He hasn't succeeded much there.

    Goodenow: Been perfect for the players in his respective role, just like Bettman. Given the players everything and more. Raised the average salary. He basically did his job. As for the game, his cba, which he negotiated well in 94, has helped hockey become what it is as well as dumb owners.

    THEY BOTH SUCK
     
  3. barnburner

    barnburner Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm no fan of Bettman, and remain hopeful that when this is all over, that he will be shown the door. Still - in this instance I am in total agreement with him.
    The league is not asking the players to save them from themselves. What the players want is to be able to play each owner against the other. They scream "free market" - yet when the nhl wants to have the same arbitration rights as the player - they yell "unacceptable". They want a free marketplace when it suits them - period.
    Yes, the owners created this mess by failing to hold the line during the last cba and get this settled once and for all. The owners are trying to fix the problem, but the players want a "magic" fix, that allows them to keep their bloated contracts in the process. That is why they refused to consider any kind of cost certainty - because it doesn't contain any loopholes for them to exploit in returning to status quo. They say it's not their fault that the owners escalate the salaries by bidding against each other. Of course, if the owners stick to their budgets and refuse to compete with each other, then the players scream "collusion". What it boils down to - is they want their money, and if the league folds - it's ownerships fault.
    They are in danger of killing the Golden Goose. Then let's see where they are going to get their $10 million dollar contracts from.
     
  4. ohiohabsfan

    ohiohabsfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Television
    Location:
    Ohio
    Home Page:
    Who gave them the bloated contracts?

    The owners.

    I keep saying it, if you want cost certainty, don't pay Holik 8 million. It's pretty simple.
     
  5. ryz

    ryz Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Great post. After scouring these forums for the last month or 2 I have to say that your post pretty much sums up my feelings exactly. :handclap:
     
  6. barnburner

    barnburner Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, are you saying that since they made a mistake in the past - that they do not have the right to correct the problem??
     
  7. i am dave

    i am dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corner of 1st & 1st
    Who gave John LeClair $9 million? An arbitrator.
     
  8. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    I can bet you one thing. If every single owner followed this "don't pay them then" stance, then all the superstars would be holding out.

    Let me ask a question. If the best top player of someones favourite team asked for x amount of $$ and the owner said no, would u get mad if the player left? asked for a trade? whatever...
     
  9. ryz

    ryz Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    They are trying to implement a system to prevent the "free spending" teams (like the NYR paying Holik 8 mil) from doing this in the future. thats the whole point of a league imposed salary cap. It's pretty simple.
     
  10. Fish on The Sand

    Fish on The Sand Untouchable

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    61,896
    Likes Received:
    1,559
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nanaimo
    Home Page:
    its not like the owners just said here is 8 million, Holik wouldn't sign for less, and if he did the union would be all over his ass.
     
  11. firstroundbust

    firstroundbust lacks explosiveness

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown

    :handclap:
     
  12. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    Let me ask a question. If the best top player of someones favourite team asked for x amount of $$ and the owner said no, would u get mad if the player left? asked for a trade? Or would you say "oh it's ok our #1 guy left because the owner was just folling a budget".

    Lets use Vancouver. If Naslund asked for x amount and the owner said no, would u get mad if he left? Then same happens with Bertuzzi or Ohlund. A few players. Would you PA Lovers just say "Oh well it's ok, as long as our owner is following his budget. Hooray for the owner he didn't pay someone that was a big part of our team"..

    This is the logic you guys go by.
     
  13. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,986
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    169
    when did this happen? the NHLPA was actually the one who suggested that teams be allowed to take players to arbitration. the arbitration idea they balked at wasn't about teams taking players to arbitration, but the idea of limiting an arbitration award to only a 25% increase

    please get your facts straight at least
     
  14. blah

    blah Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought he got 7 mil in arb?
     
  15. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    uhhh lets see....The players think they are smart and they can find loopholes. They said a team can only take a player to arbitration ONE TIME that's it. You call that fair? You can bet your life that the league will only go for unlimited 2 way arbitration to make it perfectly even.

    Pa lovers seem to forget that it wasn't just a select few idiotic owners who messed up the pay scale. Arbitration was a complete and utter joke. Players were guaranteed to get a salary inbetween theirs and the owners demands. It was so inflationary.
     
  16. Steve L*

    Steve L* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southampton, England
    Home Page:
    He did then Clarke had to offer $9m next year to keep him. A perfect axample of arbitration inflation.
     
  17. Hemooli

    Hemooli Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    820
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Home Page:
    Yes - $7 million. I think the point still stands, however, that the system needed fixing because the owner(s) are helpless in those situations.
     
  18. rekrul

    rekrul Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    bittersville,ca
    Home Page:
    I'm with the poster above, I want bettman to win and bring the NHL in line with how the vast majority of sports leauges run in N America, then get shown the door. the over expansion would have been fine spread out over 10+ more years, however I'm not sure how to get those markets interested in hockey if there is no local team, and thats the gist getting the US tv market intersted, somehow Bettman managed to watch the game decline from already bare bones ratings. Worse he has sat by and let the US media use the NHL as a punchline, the only time I ever saw some passion from him is this labor battle, wish he had some of that fire for the game.

    again the owners are to blame for the escalation of salaries, but Bettman also goofed with the 94 lockout because the intial agreement was finalized with major loopholes. under his watch he had about as much vision on the CBA as he did with the future of the NHL.
     
  19. c-carp

    c-carp Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    9,821
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Illinois
    Home Page:
    Bettman Sucks, plain and simple
     
  20. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    Fair points and one assumes that your question is rhetorical. Of course, fans will whine when their superstar holds out, isn't paid and eventually comes back unhappy or is traded. But fans are often hypocritical. They live in a fantasy land, where players "get paid too much", but owners are "bums" if they don't give them what they demand.

    Owners on the other hand, need to make hard, real-life busines$$ decisions, exhibit discipline, take the short-term PR hit and think long-term. Few (the smart ones) do.

    Buffalo let Peca sulk for a season before trading him; the world didn't end. NJD has had in-season holdouts in Morrison, Niedermayer, etc. and they survived just fine, thank you. Gaborik's absence and mediocre play upon his return surely had an negative effect on the Wild's '03-'04 season. But they, too, will move on together and fans will again fill the stands in Minnesota.

    Of course, to your point, it is unreasonable to expect ALL owners to adhere to such strict financial restraint and, true too, that it would result in more "stars" sitting out. But, that beats the entire league sitting out, IMO.

    It all comes down to how much restriction you want to place on the market.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2005
  21. Slapshot17

    Slapshot17 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Prince George
    No player is worth the kind of money they receive, but in turn no owner should be pocketing so much of the fans money. If a cap turns into reduced ticket prices, and a chance for kids who ordinarily wouldn't get to goto games, then I'm all for it, but I'm afraid that it will just result in more money in owners pockets and less money in players pockets, and truth be told, I don't think either of them deserve it. The reason the game exisits is because the fans watch it. We should be rewarded as well with affordable games, and a higher quality of hockey.
     
  22. Strazzobosco

    Strazzobosco Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    Fairfax, VA
    I can't agree with you more. well said. As for the owners, I can't say they came up with a reasonable proposal yet! The last one? Nevermind the 24% rollback, they tack on a cap, a luxury tax within the cap, reduce qualifying offers, ban holding out, and then make the arbitration very pro-owner. This is not bargaining. This is a wishlist. At least the players made concessions. The owners still have to make one.
     
  23. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    It has been a long time...but my memory is that the owners basically undercut their own position, putting Bettman in a very weak position at the end of the negotiations for the CBA signed in 1995. And if the wasn't bad enough, Goodenow took him to school by creating a number of loophole helpful in salary escalation after they already had an 'agreement in principle'. The fact that Bettman is still employed says that the ownership group knows they tied his hands the last time. The fact that the owners tied their own hands with the super-majority deal, reinforces the point. We won't know for years if Bettman was a good commissioner or not. If hockey grows in the U.S., television revenues rebound, and a new CBA allows all 30 franchises to compete on a even playing field, will he be seen as a bad commissioner? Think long term...
     
  24. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    When LeClair got $7 million in arbitration he has just come off the following seasons:

    25 - during the lockout
    51
    50
    51
    43
    40

    During those 6 year nobody in the NHL scored my goals. The $7 million was well deserved.
     
  25. Hockeyfan02

    Hockeyfan02 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    14,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pistivity
    Home Page:
    If his contract demands are ridiculous then you dont give in to his demands, simple as that. The owners should be able to correct mistakes, but the owners in the Holik sweepstakes are to blame for that contract. If Darren Rumble wont sign for less than 8 million dollars, do you sign him to that just because he wont sign for less?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"