Bettman: ATL relo "one-off" (no more foreseen); Balsillie-approach not suggested

[Jet]

Bettman's job is to support his owners, period. If that means throwing cold water on rumors, then he'll do it & willingly so. That's why I laugh when he gets all the blame he does. He is just acting on behalf of the BOG who determine how the league runs.

I understand the point you and others are making. He HAS to paint a rosy picture of the league, it's his job.

My issue with him is mainly the smarmy, arrogant way he deals with media.

Also, your assertions being correct doesn't change the fact that you can't trust what he, or Daly for that matter say, and that was my main point.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Bettman is pretty well versed in legal-ese. He never even acknowledged relocation of Atlanta as a possibility until the deal was virtually complete.

Nothing he has said is incorrect; I think that he and the league's desire is to see all franchises remain where they are at. If local ownership cannot be found, they are forced to explore elsewhere. There's nothing surprising about that to me.

I agree with this. [mod] The city of Glendale, foolish as they MAY be, were willing to help keep the team there. They have an arena where they're the only tenant. They've had ownership interest in some way, shape, or form. Atlanta was a hockey club with an owner that was looking to sell in a place no one wanted to keep them, without owning the arena too. The team lost a ton of money, which also factors in to the lack of interest, especially when a prospective owner can't count on arena revenue to offset other losses. The fact is, the Atlanta situation was infinitely more ugly than the Phoenix one. Everyone thinks the Phoenix issue has been going on longer. It was just much more public and pronounced because of the Moyes BK filing and the NHL's subsequent purchase of the team. Because the NHL owns the team, they have a lot more invested in the franchise. The league as a whole does, because every owner was helping pay for them. I fully expect with Phoenix being the league's only prolific problem child at the moment, that they'll be able to focus upon and push a resolution to the situation there. I'd be willing to bet that Glendale is officially on a really short leash, and that the clock is ticking rapidly towards an Atlanta-like conclusion.

 

[edog37]

And if the Coyotes can't get a local owner and Glendale won't pony up again next year? Then what?

then they move somewhere else.....there is no downside for the league on this.

 

[edog37]

I understand the point you and others are making. He HAS to paint a rosy picture of the league, it's his job.

My issue with him is mainly the smarmy, arrogant way he deals with media.

Also, your assertions being correct doesn't change the fact that you can't trust what he, or Daly for that matter say, and that was my main point.

it isn't entirely about painting a rosy picture of the league. It's about doing his boss' bidding (in this case, the BoG). I agree it is hard to take his word, but you have to ask if those are really his words or the BoGs. I tend to think more the latter. In terms of arrogance, I put him right up there with Roger Goddell....

 

[Evil Doctor]

I fully expect with Phoenix being the league's only prolific problem child at the moment, that they'll be able to focus upon and push a resolution to the situation there. I'd be willing to bet that Glendale is officially on a really short leash, and that the clock is ticking rapidly towards an Atlanta-like conclusion.

I don't think that's the case. From the current Phoenix thread...

A little tidbit from http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/05/10/20110510glendale-coyotes-vote.html that I hadn't seen discussed....

One difference in the current agreement: the NHL obtains the right to renew the agreement yearly for 10 years.

So basically, if no owner is ever found, the NHL can choose to keep the team in Glendale for the next 10 years and have the CoG pay $250M for the privledge. Never said the NHL was stupid, but the CoG................

It would seem that as long as Glendale keeps paying, the NHL will keep shoveling the crack....

 

[tarheelhockey]

Has there been any word of interested ownership?

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

My issue with him is mainly the smarmy, arrogant way he deals with media.

Have you seen the way the smarmy, arrogant media deals with him? He dishes out exactly what he takes.

The media's reaction to Winnipeg getting a team was basically "Great, now when are the Coyotes moving to Quebec City?" shows the mentality of the media, and when journalists basically start telling the commish how to do his job, yeah, they deserve to take some crap for it.

 

[Fugu]

The hate of Bettman has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. I hate Bettman. Don't get me wrong. But to say he hasn't done more good for the game than bad is pure lunacy.

What if I said it was pure lunacy to keep saying he's done anything "for the good of the game"?

Exactly what is it he's done then?

We can't give him credit for expanding because kdb will come along and point out that was a BOG plan before Bettman was brought in.

He's been the overseer for two CBA's, one deemed so wretched in its results that a lockout was necessary to right the ship.

Only problem though is that it seems the new CBA is making it very hard on revenue-challenged teams to survive. How many more owners have to come along and say they cannot stomach losses of $20-30 MM per year any longer before the Bettman supporters wake up and smell the coffee?

While I'm pleased for the Winnipeg fans, very sorry for the Atlanta fans, this IS a step back for the NHL's strategic plan, now in its second decade.

And before anyone claims he did something magnificent about revenues, I would point that yes, they grew organically in some markets, but the CAD sure has made things look a heck of a lot rosier than if it stayed depressed.

Furthermore, the 'wonderful' TV contract is finally recovering from a step backwards, thanks to the earlier mismanagement and lockout.

~Imagine~ if they'd done it better the first time.

So again--- what is this good of the game of which you speak?

 

[LadyStanley]

FTR, the only way we know that WPG was even considered a <superlative>, possible relocation destination was due to an internal email from Bettman to Daly that was released in the information in the bankruptcy court case of the Coyotes!

Otherwise, I doubt it EVER would have been made public.

Ottawa, SJ, and Tampa played in awful arenas temporarily. But that was twenty years ago, and there's some nice shiny places already.

San Jose already had firm plans for arena and I think had broken ground between the time they were granted a franchise (May 18, 1990) and they began to play (Fall 1991).

I think that the other two expansion franchises also had plans for new arenas.

Columbus and Minnesota did not start to play until their arenas were finished, so there could have been some BOG change (of philosophy) that required (or highly encouraged) a "new" arena to be available to play before the franchise would start.

 

[GuelphMadHatter]

What if I said it was pure lunacy to keep saying he's done anything "for the good of the game"?

Exactly what is it he's done then?

We can't give him credit for expanding because kdb will come along and point out that was a BOG plan before Bettman was brought in.

He's been the overseer for two CBA's, one deemed so wretched in its results that a lockout was necessary to right the ship.

Only problem though is that it seems the new CBA is making it very hard on revenue-challenged teams to survive. How many more owners have to come along and say they cannot stomach losses of $20-30 MM per year any longer before the Bettman supporters wake up and smell the coffee?

While I'm pleased for the Winnipeg fans, very sorry for the Atlanta fans, this IS a step back for the NHL's strategic plan, now in its second decade.

And before anyone claims he did something magnificent about revenues, I would point that yes, they grew organically in some markets, but the CAD sure has made things look a heck of a lot rosier than if it stayed depressed.

Furthermore, the 'wonderful' TV contract is finally recovering from a step backwards, thanks to the earlier mismanagement and lockout.

~Imagine~ if they'd done it better the first time.

So again--- what is this good of the game of which you speak?

Preach it. The hate for Bettman sometimes can be over the top, but considering Bettman's grand plan and the whole reason he was hired in the first place, from a business perspective he has been a complete and utter failure. Not entirely his fault. It was foolish on the NHL's part to expand into some of these markets that just don't give a damn about hockey and also to approve questionable ownership. Still, Bettman hasn't killed the game, but he hasn't really been some huge visionary that should be lauded. How long before the owners figure it out?

 

[CAF1837]

Even if God himself came down from the Heavens with a bag of money and bought the Coyotes, there still wouldn't have been a realignment for the 2011-12 season. It was too late to do it.

This may be the case, but I have a hard time believing it.
If the NHL was able to mock up TWO schedules including one with a team in Winnipeg, and now just pick which one they need (w/ ATL or w/ WPG), then could they not have included a divisional re-alignment in that mock?

I'm racking my brain to figure out what else might have been effected by a divisional re-alignment, but can't come up with anything that would have been irreversibly planned PRIOR to the release of the schedule.

I'd love to be corrected on this though....

 

[13 others]

Jesus - Gary Bettman could walk into a building drenched head-to-toe and tell you it's raining outside, and you guys would be convinced that he walked through a carwash and is just BS'ing you.

Get over yourselves.

More like he would walk through a car wash, walk in soaked and try to convince us it's raining outside. That would be a better metaphor for saying the Coyotes aren't up for relocation and everything is swell.

I guess you really think he expects to take 25m a year from Glendale taxpayers. That seems sustainable Nobody will buy that team and keep it there and I doubt the other owners will be happy paying for it to stay there.

 

[Killion]

There's nothing crazy about it unless you believe Bettman is a reactive businessman/lawyer without the ability to think strategically or about contingencies.

Stating "Atlanta was a one-off" is ignoring the facts, the reality on the ground on the front lines. Both Phoenix & Florida are Zombie armies Marching through Purgatory. The difference between an armchair General and a real one is the real one thinks logistically & strategically while the guy in the chair thinks theoretically. I am not about to suspend my belief that more teams will not be moving simply because Gary Bettman says so. Neither Phoenix nor Atlanta's problems should have been allowed to their own devices, festered, running into the the dead zone at terminal velocity. Had the league simply been a lot more proactive in its stewardship & care of its number one assets; the health of its franchises, instead of mouthing idiotic platitudes, they wouldnt be in this mess.

 

[SavageSteve]

I think the biggest thing to consider in this right now in considering ATL as a 'one-off' is the financial forecast of the US in a recovering economy. WHEN the US pulls its collective head out of its backside economically, the US dollar is going to rise significantly to offset energy costs and drive the engine again. So when Canadian teams start having to pay salaries in US dollars when they charge in Loonies w/ that kind of exchange rate, what's going to happen? Regardless of any nationalistic pride, in the end it will be economics that will prevail.

In the grand scheme of things, we're talking major community assets here (pro sports in general) that in a sense feed themselves and make a little money or break-even if operated correctly and have their real value as accessories to standard of living/entertainment in attracting businesses, workforce, etc to a region. So when a petulant owner who spends like a drunken sailor to 'go for it' w/out realizing the ramifications and limitations of the fan base/region in relation to available entertainment options, you get situations like Columbus or the Florida Marlins in the late 90's. Even proven businessmen have had the backsides handed to them in the sports arena because the business of sports doesn't always work like a normal business where you pay quantity for quality. Optimally your GM is looking for that player (or players) to work on the cheap till their big payday comes and then be scouting out who is next to fill those roles when the price becomes stupid and skim off the cream of your crop that you want to keep for the fans to save face. You know the old 'buy low sell high' mantra.

The reason I'm even going here is that I get a read that there is concern that more Canadian-based teams could fall into this situation and then have their butts handed to them when the exchange rates work in the US teams favor causing similar heartache faced in the Quebec and Winnipeg situations in the 90's.

 

[Fugu]

More like he would walk through a car wash, walk in soaked and try to convince us it's raining outside. That would be a better metaphor for saying the Coyotes aren't up for relocation and everything is swell.

I guess you really think he expects to take 25m a year from Glendale taxpayers. That seems sustainable Nobody will buy that team and keep it there and I doubt the other owners will be happy paying for it to stay there.

The real crux of the matter here is that the NHL isn't supposed to own its own franchises. Everything they do is a stopgap and far from the idea or even required state. Let's not sweep it under the rug just because the league has been treading water for two years now.

I think the biggest thing to consider in this right now in considering ATL as a 'one-off' is the financial forecast of the US in a recovering economy. WHEN the US pulls its collective head out of its backside economically, the US dollar is going to rise significantly to offset energy costs and drive the engine again. So when Canadian teams start having to pay salaries in US dollars when they charge in Loonies w/ that kind of exchange rate, what's going to happen? Regardless of any nationalistic pride, in the end it will be economics that will prevail.

In the grand scheme of things, we're talking major community assets here (pro sports in general) that in a sense feed themselves and make a little money or break-even if operated correctly and have their real value as accessories to standard of living/entertainment in attracting businesses, workforce, etc to a region. So when a petulant owner who spends like a drunken sailor to 'go for it' w/out realizing the ramifications and limitations of the fan base/region in relation to available entertainment options, you get situations like Columbus or the Florida Marlins in the late 90's. Even proven businessmen have had the backsides handed to them in the sports arena because the business of sports doesn't always work like a normal business where you pay quantity for quality. Optimally your GM is looking for that player (or players) to work on the cheap till their big payday comes and then be scouting out who is next to fill those roles when the price becomes stupid and skim off the cream of your crop that you want to keep for the fans to save face. You know the old 'buy low sell high' mantra.

The reason I'm even going here is that I get a read that there is concern that more Canadian-based teams could fall into this situation and then have their butts handed to them when the exchange rates work in the US teams favor causing similar heartache faced in the Quebec and Winnipeg situations in the 90's.

Excellent points, but don't overlook the fact that the economic system of the league is supposed to mitigate exchange rate losses. Depending on the size of a currency swing, it won't cover everything, but the revenue sharing/transfer plan is paid out in USD. The smaller Cdn markets will be brought up to the midpoint as long as they can meet the league's other metrics. (I also assume that if you're at 100% capacity, you can't be expected to grow butts in the seats at 3% per annum. )

 

[MJB Devils23*]

What if I said it was pure lunacy to keep saying he's done anything "for the good of the game"?

Exactly what is it he's done then?

We can't give him credit for expanding because kdb will come along and point out that was a BOG plan before Bettman was brought in.

He's been the overseer for two CBA's, one deemed so wretched in its results that a lockout was necessary to right the ship.

Only problem though is that it seems the new CBA is making it very hard on revenue-challenged teams to survive. How many more owners have to come along and say they cannot stomach losses of $20-30 MM per year any longer before the Bettman supporters wake up and smell the coffee?

While I'm pleased for the Winnipeg fans, very sorry for the Atlanta fans, this IS a step back for the NHL's strategic plan, now in its second decade.

And before anyone claims he did something magnificent about revenues, I would point that yes, they grew organically in some markets, but the CAD sure has made things look a heck of a lot rosier than if it stayed depressed.

Furthermore, the 'wonderful' TV contract is finally recovering from a step backwards, thanks to the earlier mismanagement and lockout.

~Imagine~ if they'd done it better the first time.

So again--- what is this good of the game of which you speak?

Basically any bad thing that happened to the NHL is Bettman's fault, but any good thing that happened to the NHL happened just despite of Bettman. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Fugu]

Basically any bad thing that happened to the NHL is Bettman's fault, but any good thing that happened to the NHL happened just despite of Bettman. Is that what you're saying?

You first. I know what's on my list of Bettman's good deeds.

 

[Fidel Astro]

The media's reaction to Winnipeg getting a team was basically "Great, now when are the Coyotes moving to Quebec City?" shows the mentality of the media, and when journalists basically start telling the commish how to do his job, yeah, they deserve to take some crap for it.

I think it all depends on your perspective. Personally, I think this is the correct attitude for the media to take with Bettman.

As evidenced by the struggles faced by the Coyotes, Thrashers and Panthers (among others), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the NHL's southern expansion, which mainly occurred on Bettman's watch, has been something less than a success.

Relocating the Thrashers to Winnipeg was a step (finally) toward a solution to the league's problem. There are still a few other teams out there with ownership issues that seem unlikely to be solved in the near future, so in light of what's happened with Winnipeg getting the Thrashers, asking "when are the Coyotes moving to Quebec City?" is not just an example of trolling Bettman, it's a serious question.

"You have a number of leaks in your roof. You finally got around to plugging one of them, now what are you gonna do about the others?"

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

You first. I know what's on my list of Bettman's good deeds.

Exhaling carbon dioxide, which would keep the plants alive in his office if they weren't made of plastic?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I think it all depends on your perspective. Personally, I think this is the correct attitude for the media to take with Bettman.

As evidenced by the struggles faced by the Coyotes, Thrashers and Panthers (among others), it's not unreasonable to suggest that the NHL's southern expansion, which mainly occurred on Bettman's watch, has been something less than a success.

Relocating the Thrashers to Winnipeg was a step (finally) toward a solution to the league's problem. There are still a few other teams out there with ownership issues that seem unlikely to be solved in the near future, so in light of what's happened with Winnipeg getting the Thrashers, asking "when are the Coyotes moving to Quebec City?" is not just an example of trolling Bettman, it's a serious question.

"You have a number of leaks in your roof. You finally got around to plugging one of them, now what are you gonna do about the others?"

Solution to the League's problem? How so?

To me, it seems to be a short term fix, yet only exacerbates the League's problem in the long term.

 

[Evil Doctor]

Exhaling carbon dioxide, which would keep the plants alive in his office if they weren't made of plastic?

He's contributing to Global Warming, definitely a negative...

 

[New User Name]

Solution to the League's problem? How so?

To me, it seems to be a short term fix, yet only exacerbates the League's problem in the long term.

How so?

 

[Grudy0]

Stating "Atlanta was a one-off" is ignoring the facts, the reality on the ground on the front lines. Both Phoenix & Florida are Zombie armies Marching through Purgatory. The difference between an armchair General and a real one is the real one thinks logistically & strategically while the guy in the chair thinks theoretically. I am not about to suspend my belief that more teams will not be moving simply because Gary Bettman says so. Neither Phoenix nor Atlanta's problems should have been allowed to their own devices, festered, running into the the dead zone at terminal velocity. Had the league simply been a lot more proactive in its stewardship & care of its number one assets; the health of its franchises, instead of mouthing idiotic platitudes, they wouldnt be in this mess.

This.

If what this entire Thrashers to Winnipeg ordeal has taught us, it is that there is plenty going on behind the scenes.

Gary Bettman stated not more than three weeks ago to not trust what the media is reporting, as it is speculation, yet the media did pretty much get it right that the Thrashers were going to Winnipeg. Then again, Bettman did toe a completely different line with respect to the Coyotes as opposed to the Thrashers, as the NHL owns the Coyotes.

I'm just not too sure what Mr. Bettman could have done in Atlanta. We've seen owners simply walkout and throw the keys on the table (St Louis circa 1983) and others simply file for bankruptcy (Phoenix, 2008). Unlike either of those, the owners in Atlanta also own the arena and the NBA team, so when push came to shove, the owners could pretty much lock the team out of the arena. The NHL had no true control over much of the situation.

So I would have to believe any other possible candidate for relocation must be in dire straits and the ability to deny the NHL the ability to play in the arena, unless it is simply that an NHL ownership group that controls the arena rights is swimming under so much red ink that they simply cannot pay the bills any longer.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Have you seen the way the smarmy, arrogant media deals with him? He dishes out exactly what he takes.

The media's reaction to Winnipeg getting a team was basically "Great, now when are the Coyotes moving to Quebec City?" shows the mentality of the media, and when journalists basically start telling the commish how to do his job, yeah, they deserve to take some crap for it.

Why do act like the Canadian media only does this? Again back to Toronto and the NFL, the american media took the piss out Goddell until he conceded TO had a stadium issue.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

How so?

First, we agree that the NHL's main problem is that it has the least amount of impact out of the 4 major sports leagues in the U.S., the weakest national brand? As in, the NHL needs to increase it's national brand (this does include "growing the game", but I am referring to the larger portion of that here).

Assuming that we do, then the move from Atlanta to Winnipeg, while almost certainly an improvement in the short term, is not beneficial and arguably harmful to this goal in the longterm.

In the short term, Winnipeg will probably make money (at least, more money than the Thrashers!). They will cause more interest in Canada (specifically Manitoba), and they will probably increase the value of sponsorship packages in Canada.

In the long term, however, these benefits do not outweigh the loss of the Atlanta market. The Atlanta market is huge, with both enormous population bases and corporate support, of which Winnipeg (indeed, the majority of NHL markets) cannot begin to compare.

A successful franchise in Atlanta will help to a much greater extent of the NHL's aims (national impact) than a successful franchise in Winnipeg. A successful franchise in Winnipeg reaches to a metro area of around 750,000 people; one in Atlanta reaches to a metro population of nearly 5.5 million. Further, Atlanta is one of the great sports hubs of the world, specifically the Braves, as they were labeled "America's Team".

Basically, the way I see it, while Winnipeg will, in the short term, perform much better than the Thrashers in the business department, the NHL just closed itself off to not only a large amount of people, but a large amount of corporate support and potential media exposure.

EDIT: Now, it could be that Fidel Astro was referring to the problem of "trouble franchises". That I disagree with on the basis of being a short sighted viewpoint, as well as the fact that relocation is absolutely no way to fix the problem in the first place.