Bettman comments 1/8

[Fugu]

NHL gives up some of that right by virtue of having a CBA, so the NHLPA gets a say.

The Montreal Canadiens are just a franchise of the NHL. That's all they are. Just like the independently owned and operated McDonald's down the street from you, they have to follow the franchiser's rules to remain a franchise.

Bettman's job is to maximize the franchise values and revenues of the league. Period. If he and the BOG thought that was best done by taking 100% of local revenue and redistributing, they would, but that's not the right answer. So they have to figure out what the right balance is, but don't mistake what they have the power to do and what makes sense to do.

The only thing that makes the NHL model different than McDonalds is the limited # of franchises give each franchise owner substantial power in the decision making of the franchiser, so decisions end up being slightly suboptimal for the franchiser to keep the top producing franchises happy.

The McDonald's analogy doesn't hold whatsoever. McD's is a for-profit corporation with all the marketing, production, etc, under it's control. It chooses to distribute its products through franchisees.

The NHL is a consortium of 30 owners, who employ the central group to manage their collective effort. The group owns the rights to any given franchise, but the owners employ Bettman-- not the other way around. Bettman's job is not to maximize franchise revenues per se, but to ensure that the league functions, per their own rules, in producing a sports entertainment product. He basically leads that part of the league where collective interests exist. The individual owners strive to maximize their own franchise values, which at times may mean the others (via the league) have to agree to rules and such to govern these actions (interference, ownership limited to one team, tampering, etc.).

And I categorically refuse to accept your premise that Bettman could lead an effort that would 'confiscate' the entire revenues of any one team, other than by means where they legally can basically boot an owner and assume ownership of the franchise.

Do you really think they could do this without compensating the owner, from a legal perspective where there was no wrongdoing? Remember what an owner gets when he buys a team in a given market--- the rights to that market.

 

[kdb209]

The Montreal Canadiens are just a franchise of the NHL. That's all they are. Just like the independently owned and operated McDonald's down the street from you, they have to follow the franchiser's rules to remain a franchise.

Not true.

McD's are franchised by a separate for-profit corporation. The corporation has wide latitude over what it can do - subject only to the terms of the individual franchise agreements (and local franchise law). Individual franchise owners have little power or influence over the corporation.

NHL Teams are franchised by the NHL (a not-for-profit Joint Venture partnership consisting of all of the Teams themselves). The NHL is limited in what it can do by the team franchise agreements, NHL Constitution & By-Laws (changes in the Constitution require either 75% or unanimous consent), the CBA, and anti-trust law. Franchise owners have significant power - many League operational issues require votes of the BoG (including a simple majority in hiring and firing the Commissioner).

The NHL cannot arbitrarily make changes without consent of the BoG and likely the NHLPA - since revenues and revenue sharing were included in the CBA, they are now assumed to be areas subject to collective bargaining unless the PA relinquishes that right.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This wouldn't be enough of an incentive, would it?

An incentive for...? If you mean enough of an incentive to get the players to sign off on the CBA, well I guess it depends on what's being offered. If they offer to pad the players' retirement options, that might have more long-term meaning than a slight uptick in payroll. The players' financial advisors would agree, anyway.

We've been around this block a few times, but there is no way of lessening the revenue gap unless the smaller teams can have several years of double digit growth and catch up. Yet even so, something called market potential will always work against some of these teams. The NFL gets so much more money from league-wide contributions that it's easier to work out different sharing schemes.

I don't remember if I said this here or in another thread, but the biggest factor in closing the revenue gap is not controlled by the CBA -- it's a matter of developing the weaker markets over time. There's not an awful lot that the league can negotiate to mitigate the disasters in Phoenix and Atlanta over the past decade. They simply have to wait until those organizations pick up the pieces and get back to profitability.

 

[macavoy]

Maybe the NHL could stop sharing its branding revenue equally. As it stands now, the Revenue sharing that currently takes place, is money from the big teams gets transferred to the little teams right?

Do we know how the NHL branding revenue is spent? Does the NHL use that revenue for its operations, to pay for refs, NHL exec salaries etc....? Does the NHL collect a franchise fee (aka 3% or something) on all of its franchisee's revenues?

Does the NHL payout to the 30 teams, the revenue it receives from the NHL brand and TV contracts? Could they just not give the TV contracts to the smaller markets.

 

[kdb209]

Maybe the NHL could stop sharing its branding revenue equally. As it stands now, the Revenue sharing that currently takes place, is money from the big teams gets transferred to the little teams right?

Do we know how the NHL branding revenue is spent? Does the NHL use that revenue for its operations, to pay for refs, NHL exec salaries etc....? Does the NHL collect a franchise fee (aka 3% or something) on all of its franchisee's revenues?

Does the NHL payout to the 30 teams, the revenue it receives from the NHL brand and TV contracts? Could they just not give the TV contracts to the smaller markets.

A portion of Centrally Generated League Revenues (broadcast deals, merchandise licensing, etc) MAY be used to for Revenue Sharing - 50% of any excess over $300M may be used to fund up to 25% of Revenue Sharing - otherwise it is split evenly among all 30 teams. Note, that (as far as we know) Centrally Generated League Revenues have never exceeded $300M, so none has been used for Revenue Sharing.

Centrally Generated League Revenues are not used to fund league operations - instead the League sets an annual budget and assesses all teams dues to pay for it.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

An incentive for...? If you mean enough of an incentive to get the players to sign off on the CBA, well I guess it depends on what's being offered. If they offer to pad the players' retirement options, that might have more long-term meaning than a slight uptick in payroll. The players' financial advisors would agree, anyway.



I don't remember if I said this here or in another thread, but the biggest factor in closing the revenue gap is not controlled by the CBA -- it's a matter of developing the weaker markets over time. There's not an awful lot that the league can negotiate to mitigate the disasters in Phoenix and Atlanta over the past decade. They simply have to wait until those organizations pick up the pieces and get back to profitability.

There's NO indication that will ever happen. When you read about reported losses year after year I'm not sure gate losses can make that up. In other words there some deep rooted problems that may never fix themselves. IMO there are 4-6 franchises that will probably never be profitable and be able to keep up with the Jones's. Self imposed caps have proven that.

 

[bbud]

How did you understand it? He basically said I shouldn't care about the NHL CBA negotiations and I should focus on the other three.

You don't find that just a tad insulting?

Interesting how you changed my 'almost insulting' to me taking offense to it. I'm not offended, just a little insulted that Gary is telling me I shouldn't care about the CBA negotiations of the NHL. Why shouldn't I?

Anyway...the point was that Gary always talks like that. He always tells people when questioned that they shouldn't even be talking about it. It's how he talks to Ron McLean...it is how he talked to people when he was asked about Phoenix prior to their bankrupcty..it's how he talks to people whenever they bring up attendance.

He changes the subject or uses league wide numbers and then says something that is akin to "It's of no concern to you. Mind your own business and don't ask about that. I'll tell you what you should pay attention to from now on."

He talks down to people and yeah...I find it a tad insulting. Just answer the freakin' question and don't worry about why people are asking it at this time. Feel free to tell us what the NHL is focused on right now...but don't tell me what I should be focused on.

He has always been a control freak and a liar wait till negotiations start and suddenly he will say the interviews like these were taken out of context and they need reductions same old blow smoke up the masses ***** from Buttman.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

He has always been a control freak and a liar wait till negotiations start and suddenly he will say the interviews like these were taken out of context and they need reductions same old blow smoke up the masses ***** from Buttman.

He is by far the most disingenuous pompous ass I've seen.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There's NO indication that will ever happen. When you read about reported losses year after year I'm not sure gate losses can make that up. In other words there some deep rooted problems that may never fix themselves. IMO there are 4-6 franchises that will probably never be profitable and be able to keep up with the Jones's. Self imposed caps have proven that.

There's no indication that it couldn't possibly happen. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, tinkering with the CBA will have no effect on garbage owners like Wang and Atlanta Spirit.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

There's no indication that it couldn't possibly happen. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, tinkering with the CBA will have no effect on garbage owners like Wang and Atlanta Spirit.

They're not alone. Add in the NHL (Pheonix) and Nashville and yes Carolina to the list of teams losing money.

 

[tarheelhockey]

They're not alone. Add in the NHL (Pheonix) and Nashville and yes Carolina to the list of teams losing money.

Phoenix is one thing, but I wouldn't call Karmanos a "garbage owner".

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Phoenix is one thing, but I wouldn't call Karmanos a "garbage owner".

You put in the garbage owner thing. I said "IMO there are 4-6 franchises that will probably never be profitable and be able to keep up with the Jones's. Self imposed caps have proven that".

 

[CGG]

Phoenix is one thing, but I wouldn't call Karmanos a "garbage owner".

Why don't you ask hockey fans in the fine state of Connecticut how garbagey Karmanos is.

I can't feel too sorry for the guy, he had an arena in the works in Hartford and left for his hand-picked new market that is, at best, an obscene long shot to actually turn a profit year after year, and despite winning a Stanley Cup recently they're still losing piles of money amidst fan indifference.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Why don't you ask hockey fans in the fine state of Connecticut how garbagey Karmanos is.

I can't feel too sorry for the guy, he had an arena in the works in Hartford and left for his hand-picked new market that is, at best, an obscene long shot to actually turn a profit year after year, and despite winning a Stanley Cup recently they're still losing piles of money amidst fan indifference.

That goes forgotten how he played CT and named CT Ex-Governor Weicker to his BoD.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You put in the garbage owner thing. I said "IMO there are 4-6 franchises that will probably never be profitable and be able to keep up with the Jones's. Self imposed caps have proven that".

But you went on to list teams that have made a profit, and "kept up with the Joneses", such as Nashville and Carolina. Obviously their success has been less consistent than, say, the Flyers. But you can't say "never" about those teams when it has just happened in recent memory and is projected to improve over time.

Why don't you ask hockey fans in the fine state of Connecticut how garbagey Karmanos is.

I don't expect people in CT to like Karmanos. Popularity in faraway states is not the issue here.

I can't feel too sorry for the guy, he had an arena in the works in Hartford and left for his hand-picked new market that is, at best, an obscene long shot to actually turn a profit year after year, and despite winning a Stanley Cup recently they're still losing piles of money amidst fan indifference.

I'm not going to bother correcting you here, because it'll just be another tit-for-tat, but I will mention that you're just flat-out wrong.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

But you went on to list teams that have made a profit, and "kept up with the Joneses", such as Nashville and Carolina. Obviously their success has been less consistent than, say, the Flyers. But you can't say "never" about those teams when it has just happened in recent memory and is projected to improve over time.



I don't expect people in CT to like Karmanos. Popularity in faraway states is not the issue here.



I'm not going to bother correcting you here, because it'll just be another tit-for-tat, but I will mention that you're just flat-out wrong.

He left CT without a signed deal. Everything could have fallen apart and could have been a mess. IMO he played CT and Carolina to push a deal. Karmanos is a HUGE crook and liar. His plan was to leave no matter what CT did. Ask BoD member for CompuServe former CT Governor Lowell Weicker, you the Chief Executive for the State of CT during the negotiations. It is very hypocritical for you to run around with the save Southern Franchises agenda when you have a team due to a team relocating.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It is very hypocritical for you to run around with the save Southern Franchises agenda when you have a team due to a team relocating.

How on earth is it hypocritical? It's not like I drove up to Hartford with a moving van, I was a Bruins fan at the time and the relocation waaay out of my control.

BTW, we have been over this before but he didn't leave CT without a deal.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Why don't you ask hockey fans in the fine state of Connecticut how garbagey Karmanos is.

I can't feel too sorry for the guy, he had an arena in the works in Hartford and left for his hand-picked new market that is, at best, an obscene long shot to actually turn a profit year after year, and despite winning a Stanley Cup recently they're still losing piles of money amidst fan indifference.

The hilarious thing....Karmanos announced he was moving the Whale and didn't even have a new home yet. The NHL seemed to be supportive of a relatively new owner making demands of his current market (those demands were met) and then he decided he was moving anyway....to where? He didn't know. But the NHL seemed to support him.

Pretty wild stuff. People blast Balsillie for his tactics....at least he was somewhat up-front about it .....Karmanos jerked the league around BIG TIME....and they caved. Big surprise.

If anyone wonders why Balsillie took the road he did (big reasoning being his "rogue" lawyer) it isn't hard to understand if you were educated about what Karmanos did....got away with...and is still part of the "club".

 

[CC Chiefs*]

How on earth is it hypocritical? It's not like I drove up to Hartford with a moving van, I was a Bruins fan at the time and the relocation waaay out of my control.

BTW, we have been over this before but he didn't leave CT without a deal.

This is what happened. Don't let yourself be fooled I lived in CT during this crap. Be thankful you have a team because if Bettman had used the standards back then that uses today they wouldn't been ALLOWED to leave Hartford.

Despite this, negotiations between the Whalers and Rowland to build a new $147.5 million arena seemed to be going well. Despite a nearly completed agreement, talks fell apart at the last minute when Karmanos wanted an additional $45 million dollars to cover losses during the three years the new arena was to be built. The Whalers ultimately announced that they would be leaving Hartford after the 96-97 season. This marks one of the few times that a team announced it would leave its current city without having already announced an agreement with a new one.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is what happened. Don't let yourself be fooled I lived in CT during this crap. Be thankful you have a team because if Bettman had used the standards back then that uses today they wouldn't been ALLOWED to leave Hartford.

And I would have been fine with that. I'm thankful I have a team, but not thankful that they relocated from Hartford.

Despite this, negotiations between the Whalers and Rowland to build a new $147.5 million arena seemed to be going well. Despite a nearly completed agreement, talks fell apart at the last minute when Karmanos wanted an additional $45 million dollars to cover losses during the three years the new arena was to be built. The Whalers ultimately announced that they would be leaving Hartford after the 96-97 season. This marks one of the few times that a team announced it would leave its current city without having already announced an agreement with a new one.

Yes, I know this paragraph has been on Wikipedia for quite some time now.

What it fails to mention is that the reason there was not a signed-sealed-delivered lease agreement was because the arena had to be architecturally redesigned to accomodate an NHL team. It would not have made sense to sign a lease before the thing was even blueprinted, let alone built. The Wikipedia paragraph implies that Karmanos had no plan, and that is simply not true even though it's repeated occasionally here.

I swear I thought we had gone over this in a previous thread.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that Karmanos is some kind of hero. But he's not a "problem" owner in the sense of Moyes or the Atlanta Spirit.

 

[Killion]

Uh oh. The long simmering Connecticut vs. Karmanos feuds' boiling over.

Pretty hard to find argument with either one of your positions. Karmanos was less than forthright, and the bottom-line was that no matter what arena improvements, a new facility, number of seasons tickets sold, whatever, he spied fields of gold just down the road & was leaving no matter what. He's a guy who marches to his own drummer. No grays. You either love him or hate him, and I can well imagine had I been a Whaler fan, well...... What really annoys me, is that Hartford is a far superior market to the current locations of 2 franchises (nameless, take a wild guess) that IMO should be moved, and would be the perfect foils for not only the Canes, but so too with Boston, Philly, Jersey etc. I say bring back the Whalers, ASAP!....

That being said, I take issue with a statement that "he's not a hockey guy". Long, long history of amateur & junior support; multi minor-league team owner; donations & benevolence galore to the minor hockey communities in Michigan, Ontario, the Carolinas & beyond. He & Jim Rutherford live & breathe the sport 24-7-365. They care. Still, the man possess' more than his share of wanderlust, and I hope for North Carolinas' sake he isnt overtaken with an urge to travel, team in tow, as the going's been gone economically in a dozen or more markets, Raleigh & Charlotte taking some serious hits, just like everywhere else. We'll just wait & see if he hangs tough or not no?...

 

[CC Chiefs*]

And I would have been fine with that. I'm thankful I have a team, but not thankful that they relocated from Hartford.



Yes, I know this paragraph has been on Wikipedia for quite some time now.

What it fails to mention is that the reason there was not a signed-sealed-delivered lease agreement was because the arena had to be architecturally redesigned to accomodate an NHL team. It would not have made sense to sign a lease before the thing was even blueprinted, let alone built. The Wikipedia paragraph implies that Karmanos had no plan, and that is simply not true even though it's repeated occasionally here.

I swear I thought we had gone over this in a previous thread.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that Karmanos is some kind of hero. But he's not a "problem" owner in the sense of Moyes or the Atlanta Spirit.

I lived in CT when this all happened. MAKE no mistake he played the city of Hartford, the state of CT and the fans like a drum.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I lived in CT when this all happened. MAKE no mistake he played the city of Hartford, the state of CT and the fans like a drum.

I know he did. Like I said before, I take no pleasure in how we got a team.

 

[Killion]

I lived in CT when this all happened. MAKE no mistake he played the city of Hartford, the state of CT and the fans like a drum.

Beware Greeks' bearing gifts...

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I know he did. Like I said before, I take no pleasure in how we got a team.

But you probably think Jim B shouldn't be able to buy a team and do what he wants to with it? In others words many are against one crook and in favor of another?