Bettman comments 1/8

[tarheelhockey]

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?

I don't think teams should be moved except as an absolute last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. No, I don't think that an owner should be able to move a team around at will. In my opinion, the larger interests of the league trump the owner's narrow interest in padding his profit line.

I'll say it again -- I am not happy that we got a team via relocation. I am happy we HAVE a team, but that doesn't obligate me to support relocating anybody.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I don't think teams should be moved except as an absolute last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. No, I don't think that an owner should be able to move a team around at will. In my opinion, the larger interests of the league trump the owner's narrow interest in padding his profit line.

I'll say it again -- I am not happy that we got a team via relocation. I am happy we HAVE a team, but that doesn't obligate me to support relocating anybody.

It doesn't obligate you, but it certainty SHOULD make you understand that markets are failing and GB is sitting back watching them go down and stopping any potential buyer from coming in unless they follow his rules. And I say his rules because make no mistake he driving this mess.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It doesn't obligate you, but it certainty SHOULD make you understand that markets are failing and GB is sitting back watching them go down and stopping any potential buyer from coming in unless they follow his rules. And I say his rules because make no mistake he driving this mess.

Because his team moved to Carolina well over a decade ago, it should make him understand that markets are currently failing? That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Jeffrey93]

It seems to me the fan of a relocated team, and one that defends that team as being a relocation 'success', should be able to admit that relocation is an option and does fix many problems.

I'm not sure if the problems in Hartford were a tenth of what they are in some markets today....but unless the Hurricanes are a dismal failure...tarheel, you should be able to admit that relocation serves a purpose and isn't some evil thing.

People seem to confuse things a bit....'growing the game' is all fine...as long as it is also 'growing the business/revenues' at the same time.

I defy anyone to make a business case where keeping your product away from the customers with higher demand makes business sense.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

It doesn't obligate you, but it certainty SHOULD make you understand that markets are failing

As long as someone is willing to operate a team where it is located it is not failing.

and GB is sitting back watching them go down and stopping any potential buyer from coming in unless they follow his rules.

Thank goodness! The alternative would probably be the worst thing a pro league has ever done.

Oh... you thought that was a negative?

And I say his rules because make no mistake he driving this mess.

I see no mess. Your happy unicorn rainbow land of perfection is a nice ideal, but it isn't reality. There's always going to be teams poorly run or fighting an uphill battle. It is hard for southern teams for various reasons, much harder than it is for teams in hockey hotbeds. But it's not impossible, the successful southern teams prove that. Who are you to question what risks billionaires want to take?

People see what they want to see. I've never seen Bettman act the slightest bit arrogant and he has never lied to the press, not once, despite the claims of haters who are eager to portray certain comments out of context ("thirty healthy franchises" being their deceptive and dishonest rallying cry). If he comes across as seemingly thinking he knows the business side of hockey better than those who question him (like Ron MacLean), there's a simple reason for that - he DOES know the business side of hockey better than those who question him. He's paid seven million bucks a year to know it. There is no one on the entire planet who knows it better. And of course there are plenty of people who see someone displaying expertise in a subject - any subject - as arrogance. That is more their failing than his.

 

[Whileee]

As long as someone is willing to operate a team where it is located it is not failing.

I entirely agree with this. Relocation will depend on whether there is an owner that is willing to pay the bills. That will in turn depend to a large degree on the quality of the market (i.e. fan and corporate interest) and the sorts of subsidies and/or ancillary revenues that might be available, but also depends on the owner's own financial situation.

For the past few years Phoenix has been perilously close to being a team without any interested owner, and therefore being relocated. Their new prospective owner was enticed by a sweetheart deal from the municipality (Glendale).

If another franchise is at risk of relocation, it will because the owner cannot or doesn't want to own the team in that market anymore, and there is no new investor or owner who will pay a reasonable price for it in that market.

Right now, it seems apparent that the number of teams that are looking for investors outstrips the number of interested investors. That is a problem, and the most likely threat for relocation.

I think that there is a tendency to put too much emphasis on the daily tracking of attendance, and the optimistic prognostications about how a market might develop. If an owner is in financial distress and needs to sell and can't find a local buyer, there is only so much that the NHL will be able to do to avoid relocation.

 

[Killion]

For the past few years Phoenix has been perilously close to being a team without any interested owner, and therefore being relocated.

Gary Bettman was "15 minutes away" naughty from presenting an offer from Jerry R. to Jerry M. & had the situation in hand. Alas, Jerry M. went Rogue & wrought whats followed, a far worse deal not only for himself but so too for the COG & the taxpayers. In retrospect, it would've been far more prudent for Moyes to have bitten the bullet, far less costly for the COG, and far less embarrassing for the league to have followed Bettmans' lead back in April 2009 & quietly passed the keys' to Jerry & Michael Reinsdorf.

Watching him over the past few years, my attitude & opinions of the man have changed from negative to positive, much of it based on the way he's handled the situation in Phoenix. From a purely legal & business perspective, he's turned a pigs ear into a silk purse regardless of whether or not the team stays or goes this year or 5 years from now. With a rumored 5-9 additional franchises in way over their heads, that he's able to keep the lids on it all without it all going kaboom is nothing short of astounding. The Koules & Barrie thing, the messes in Florida, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, LI & elsewhere he's juggling is worth every cent of the $7M+ he's being paid.... Ya he's argumentitive, weasely & less than candid, obtuse & arrogant, a control freak and an overachiever, single minded & focused, the very qualities one wants in a CEO, COB, President, Commissioner, and all traits common in most persons of success, merit, heft & weight. A sardonic wit, a decent guy who is in a position where he's damned if he does & damned if he dont.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Gary Bettman was "15 minutes away" naughty from presenting an offer from Jerry R. to Jerry M. & had the situation in hand. Alas, Jerry M. went Rogue & wrought whats followed, a far worse deal not only for himself but so too for the COG & the taxpayers. In retrospect, it would've been far more prudent for Moyes to have bitten the bullet, far less costly for the COG, and far less embarrassing for the league to have followed Bettmans' lead back in April 2009 & quietly passed the keys' to Jerry & Michael Reinsdorf.

Watching him over the past few years, my attitude & opinions of the man have changed from negative to positive, much of it based on the way he's handled the situation in Phoenix. From a purely legal & business perspective, he's turned a pigs ear into a silk purse regardless of whether or not the team stays or goes this year or 5 years from now. With a rumored 5-9 additional franchises in way over their heads, that he's able to keep the lids on it all without it all going kaboom is nothing short of astounding. The Koules & Barrie thing, the messes in Florida, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, LI & elsewhere he's juggling is worth every cent of the $7M+ he's being paid.... Ya he's argumentitive, weasely & less than candid, obtuse & arrogant, a control freak and an overachiever, single minded & focused, the very qualities one wants in a CEO, COB, President, Commissioner, and all traits common in most persons of success, merit, heft & weight. A sardonic wit, a decent guy who is in a position where he's damned if he does & damned if he dont.

Are you serious??

Most of the messes you mentioned should have NEVER got to that point. Especially the Phoenix debacle. The league (Bettman leading the charge) should have done everything possible to stay out of the court room. The fact he was at the wheel when the league got dragged into a bankruptcy proceeding like that isn't something you should be feeling 'positive' about.

It's all fine and dandy to say how well he handled it...but remember...he was steering the ship when he drove it into that situation as well. If you fall asleep at the wheel, wake up and show some masterful driving skills to avoid disaster...you shouldn't be praised. It's your fault you had to skillfully avoid total disaster in the first place.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I entirely agree with this. Relocation will depend on whether there is an owner that is willing to pay the bills. That will in turn depend to a large degree on the quality of the market (i.e. fan and corporate interest) and the sorts of subsidies and/or ancillary revenues that might be available, but also depends on the owner's own financial situation.

For the past few years Phoenix has been perilously close to being a team without any interested owner, and therefore being relocated. Their new prospective owner was enticed by a sweetheart deal from the municipality (Glendale).

If another franchise is at risk of relocation, it will because the owner cannot or doesn't want to own the team in that market anymore, and there is no new investor or owner who will pay a reasonable price for it in that market.

Right now, it seems apparent that the number of teams that are looking for investors outstrips the number of interested investors. That is a problem, and the most likely threat for relocation.

I think that there is a tendency to put too much emphasis on the daily tracking of attendance, and the optimistic prognostications about how a market might develop. If an owner is in financial distress and needs to sell and can't find a local buyer, there is only so much that the NHL will be able to do to avoid relocation.

Attitudes like that don't get you big TV deals or people lining up offering piles of cash to join 'the club'.

Cruising along as if everything is fine as long as some guy is willing to absorb big time losses won't benefit anyone...sure, it is a reason to say 'we don't need to move this team'....but what good is that team doing for you in the current location?

How does an Owner willing to swallow $20M plus a year in losses benefit other teams? The league overall? It doesn't. It hurts other Owners and damages the league overall.

The league doesn't seem to agree either as they have been vocal about Atlanta. They admitted they 'directed' current Ownership to only look at local buyers for now...which makes it pretty easy to assume they aren't opposed to stepping in and requiring ownership to look elsewhere if things don't improve in that market. I take that to mean that unless things get better in that market, even if somebody is willing to step up and take the losses, the league will want out. Maybe that is just a ploy to force some interest in the team...who knows.

As a league...having Owners losing piles of cash, even if it is ok with them to do so, isn't a good thing and is a problem that needs solving as soon as possible.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Gary Bettman was "15 minutes away" naughty from presenting an offer from Jerry R. to Jerry M. & had the situation in hand. Alas, Jerry M. went Rogue & wrought whats followed

Yep. From that moment on, going to court was inevitable, and the only thing left to do was to win it. Which Bettman did hands down. One of the most brilliant performances by a commissioner of any sport in history. Took a little longer than everyone hoped, though.

Moyes taking it to bankruptcy couldn't have been prevented - it wasn't even legal to prevent it. Sadly, not everyone seems to have realized this, I guess forty or so threads weren't quite enough.

The league's performance in the victory won't convince those already pre-disposed against him, the common masses who pick up their morning sports pages and get their information from the beat writer, but to the people who matter rather more - the existing and potential owners in the league - a completely different story is told. Rather than looking bad, the league looks brilliant in their eyes, as well as incredibly strong. Not a body one will try to cross without being very, very, VERY sure you are on solid ground.

All Bettman does is win, win, win.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It doesn't obligate you, but it certainty SHOULD make you understand that markets are failing and GB is sitting back watching them go down

I don't think that's the case at all. As I've made clear in the past, one can't definitively say that the market has "failed" until it refuses to buy into a standard-quality product. Like any other business, if you put your worst foot forward you will lose customers. Every single one of the struggling franchises has served up a sub-standard product for years and years, so we are seeing the expected results. I don't see that as market failure, therefore relocation is not the appropriate solution.

And GB is hardly sitting back and watching them go down, he's simply limited as to what he can do to fix these situations.

It seems to me the fan of a relocated team, and one that defends that team as being a relocation 'success', should be able to admit that relocation is an option and does fix many problems.

I will agree that
1) Relocation is an option
2) There are situations where relocation is an appropriate solution.

I'm not sure if the problems in Hartford were a tenth of what they are in some markets today....but unless the Hurricanes are a dismal failure...tarheel, you should be able to admit that relocation serves a purpose and isn't some evil thing.

Relocation is an evil thing. I believe that very strongly. It's destructive and heartbreaking, as many forumers can attest. It wipes out both history and future, erodes the culture of the league and limits the breadth of the game. To the degree that anything in hockey is evil, taking a team away from its fans is evil.

Does it serve a purpose... yes. I would even agree that there's a growing possibility that it could turn out to be the right move in a handful of markets, depending on how the immediate future turns out. Specifically, I'd agree to relocation in Miami or Atlanta or Phoenix if either of the following conditions occur:

1) Most importantly, the team loses its ownership and can't find a buyer to keep them in place. If that's the case, it's not even a decision really, just a business process.
2) The team raises its level of play substantially for 2-3 consecutive seasons, meaning they make the playoffs and win at least 1 series, and the paid attendance level doesn't increase to at least 15k per game.

If (2) occurs, that is pretty much proof positive that the market has been too badly damaged to recover without excessive investment. Effectively it would be impossible to profit under those circumstances, so relocation would be reasonable. But if that condition doesn't occur, I don't see how one can reasonably argue that the market is irrecoverable as there is no evidence of such.

 

[AllByDesign]

People seem to confuse things a bit....'growing the game' is all fine...as long as it is also 'growing the business/revenues' at the same time.

I defy anyone to make a business case where keeping your product away from the customers with higher demand makes business sense.

Since the NHL is a non-profit entity it qualifies for a different set of business rules. The NHL as a league follows the directional choice of the Board of Govenors. If they collectively decide that they want market presence over immediate revenues that is their choice. It is very evident that it is likely the case.

I have a friend who is an executive with McDonald's Corp. He always emphasizes that presence is the highest consideration in his business. There are locations that lose money and don't do well on the balance sheet. Closing the store down would make business sense in one aspect. In another they feel it would be harmful in such a way that they lose their market presence in an area with other competition. I agree that absorbing losses is not the intent of any business model, but we are talking about a major sports league. For them to be considered a major player, they need to have market presence in the largest urban areas. Revenues are going up and up with the NHL. Yes, there are some markets struggling, but the overall league is flourishing.

Watching him over the past few years, my attitude & opinions of the man have changed from negative to positive

The Koules & Barrie thing, the messes in Florida, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, LI & elsewhere he's juggling is worth every cent of the $7M+ he's being paid.... Ya he's argumentitive, weasely & less than candid, obtuse & arrogant, a control freak and an overachiever, single minded & focused, the very qualities one wants in a CEO, COB, President, Commissioner, and all traits common in most persons of success, merit, heft & weight. A sardonic wit, a decent guy who is in a position where he's damned if he does & damned if he dont.

Amen. Very well said.

Cruising along as if everything is fine as long as some guy is willing to absorb big time losses won't benefit anyone...sure, it is a reason to say 'we don't need to move this team'....but what good is that team doing for you in the current location?

How does an Owner willing to swallow $20M plus a year in losses benefit other teams? The league overall? It doesn't. It hurts other Owners and damages the league overall.

The league also doesn't believe that having half the league in Canada will benefit the league either. The league can't be everywhere. As a group they decide what they believe is best. The owners want franchises in the states. More Canadian teams will not benefit the current Canadian teams. It may create a few more owners that are in the black, but how does that help the largest money making teams? Those teams are after the golden goose. They may not be any further ahead on that goal than they were 8 years ago, but moving teams from large American markets and into mid-sized Canadian cities isn't going to help either.

 

[Killion]

Are you serious??.....Most of the messes you mentioned should have NEVER got to that point. Especially the Phoenix debacle. The league (Bettman leading the charge) should have done everything possible to stay out of the court room. The fact he was at the wheel when the league got dragged into a bankruptcy proceeding like that isn't something you should be feeling 'positive' about.....It's all fine and dandy to say how well he handled it...but remember...he was steering the ship when he drove it into that situation as well. If you fall asleep at the wheel, wake up and show some masterful driving skills to avoid disaster...you shouldn't be praised. It's your fault you had to skillfully avoid total disaster in the first place.

I am (serious). I also happen to agree with much of the rest of your post. The positions are complimentary & reconcilable. Your absolutely correct the situation in Phoenix should never have happened. The leagues not perfect & should have acted 8-9 years ago when it became quite apparent that Ellman was simply using the franchise as a pawn in his Westgate Field of Schemes. It was Moyes, not Gary Bettman at the wheel who piloted the ship onto the rocks after plundering its holds for booty; and after driving it up onto the shoals sending out an SOS to Balsillie&Rodier. The league did & continues to fight to try & keep things out of the courtroom but isnt shy from doing so if the circumstances warrant, as Captain Moyes' is about to find out, yet again, in a further $60M payout. The league & Bettmans shortfalling IMO is that they tend to be reactive as opposed to being proactive. Firefighting. Trench Mentality. Expansion & relo's were both hasty & ill conceived. No assistance, beyond Revenue Sharing to help the newer franchises in "growing the game". No "co-op program" for their franchisees'. As I said, their not perfect, sharing equally in the blame with a disparate & self interested cabal of owners. Its a tough job, but ya, I think Bettmans' most definitely the right guy for the job, Crazy-Ikes' statement that he's the best Commish in pro-sports not far off the mark.

 

[MaskedSonja]

The league also doesn't believe that having half the league in Canada will benefit the league either. The league can't be everywhere. As a group they decide what they believe is best. The owners want franchises in the states. More Canadian teams will not benefit the current Canadian teams. It may create a few more owners that are in the black, but how does that help the largest money making teams? Those teams are after the golden goose. They may not be any further ahead on that goal than they were 8 years ago, but moving teams from large American markets and into mid-sized Canadian cities isn't going to help either.

So, ABD, let's play Twlight Zone for a minute. What "Golden Goose" is it that the NHL owners want: If they don't want a few more Canadian teams that would be "in the black", then what are they (the rich teams) hoping to get from the "in the red" teams currently.

Another way of putting it: In an absolutely, idealistic, perfect situation-what is the the NHL owners want (if not a few more Canadian in the black teams)?

 

[AllByDesign]

So, ABD, let's play Twlight Zone for a minute. What "Golden Goose" is it that the NHL owners want: If they don't want a few more Canadian teams that would be "in the black", then what are they (the rich teams) hoping to get from the "in the red" teams currently.

Another way of putting it: In an absolutely, idealistic, perfect situation-what is the the NHL owners want (if not a few more Canadian in the black teams)?

The leagues Golden Goose is a National broadcasting bidding war. Right now they have a broadcasting partnership with the NBC that has worked well for both parties. the problem is that it doesn't have any guaranteed dollars for the league. It is a profit sharing plan.

The Maple Leafs, for example, are maxed to their profit earning potential. The only way to increase revenues would be on the receiving end of a more lucrative TV deal in the U.S. By moving Atlanta and Phoenix to Winnipeg and Quebec city, while admittedly might not be a deal breaker, it certainly won't assist the negotiating process.

The major owners of the league are the ones steering the ship. Jeremy Jacobs made like a bandit with all of the relocating and expanding through the US. He supplies nearly all of the concessions for those teams. When the Bruins traded Ray Bourque, it was said that he would only go to a team that had his concessions... and he did. The Avalanche made 2 trips to the finals with Bourque... I imagine people drank and ate a lot in celebration.

The point I am trying to make is that there are more factors in play than the simple fundamental question of "How much money can a multi-millionaire afford to lose"(or a city)?? There are larger fish frying in the pan.

 

[Killion]

1)The leagues Golden Goose is a National broadcasting bidding war.
2) The major owners of the league are the ones steering the ship.

1) Yepp. Along with the stabilization of all 30 teams in their current locations.

As for the Leafs' being "maxed out"?. Hardly. Real estate developments, restaurants, re-introducing vintage jerseys as 3rd jerseys every few years, expiration of seat leases, new media streams, growth of special events & concerts at the ACC & elsewhere within the GTA.... the mind boggles.

2) Ditto on the Yepp. Back in the Day it was Norris Sr., locations for the original expansion predicated upon his business interests in places like St. Louis' & LA; todays group playing second fiddle to Jacobs, Ed Snider & Comcast, Anschutz out of LA & a few others.

 

[AllByDesign]

As for the Leafs' being "maxed out"?. Hardly. Real estate developments, restaurants, re-introducing vintage jerseys as 3rd jerseys every few years

Hey, I heard that the leafs were market testing a third jersey that had a large picture of Brian Burke's mug on the front.

 

[Killion]

Hey, I heard that the leafs were market testing a third jersey that had a large picture of Brian Burke's mug on the front.

That wouldnt surprise me. When he was here in Vancouver, they had a massive 10' X 10' full color wallpaper photo of him dripping in blood from his minor league days in the lobby of their corporate offices, similar 8"X10"'s in the boardroom. Its all about Brian. Good fit for Toronto.

 

[AllByDesign]

That wouldnt surprise me. When he was here in Vancouver, they had a massive 10' X 10' full color wallpaper photo of him dripping in blood from his minor league days in the lobby of their corporate offices, similar 8"X10"'s in the boardroom. Its all about Brian. Good fit for Toronto.

Being a Bruin's fan, I like him just fine.

 

[MaskedSonja]

The leagues Golden Goose is a National broadcasting bidding war. Right now they have a broadcasting partnership with the NBC that has worked well for both parties. the problem is that it doesn't have any guaranteed dollars for the league. It is a profit sharing plan.

The Maple Leafs, for example, are maxed to their profit earning potential. The only way to increase revenues would be on the receiving end of a more lucrative TV deal in the U.S. By moving Atlanta and Phoenix to Winnipeg and Quebec city, while admittedly might not be a deal breaker, it certainly won't assist the negotiating process.

The major owners of the league are the ones steering the ship. Jeremy Jacobs made like a bandit with all of the relocating and expanding through the US. He supplies nearly all of the concessions for those teams. When the Bruins traded Ray Bourque, it was said that he would only go to a team that had his concessions... and he did. The Avalanche made 2 trips to the finals with Bourque... I imagine people drank and ate a lot in celebration.

The point I am trying to make is that there are more factors in play than the simple fundamental question of "How much money can a multi-millionaire afford to lose"(or a city)?? There are larger fish frying in the pan.

I had never even thought about the TV contract aspirations (which is why I asked )

That makes sense, and it connects to why NHL really is hesitant, at this point, to put more Canadian teams-because they want the US contracts. Your post puts together 3 or 4 pieces for me, ABD-thanks!

So the NHL continues to push for that massive US contract to put them on par with the other sports. So, it's really rather sad (in a non business way) that they will "use" the finances of the Canadian franchises to push for a non Canadian aspirations....

I think I'm gonna go read "Net Worth" now. I will say, I'm starting-between this and research for the book- the darker side of the NHL and Business dealings.....it's really rather sobering when you start seeing the "big picture"...

 

[cbcwpg]

So the NHL continues to push for that massive US contract to put them on par with the other sports.

The NHL has been trying for 40 years to land the "big" US TV contract. And even if they get a decent contract, to say it will ever be on par with Football or Baseball is not living in reality.

Maybe ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. know something that Bettman refuses to accept.... the vast majority on Americans just don't give a crap about hockey and never will.

 

[MaskedSonja]

The NHL has been trying for 40 years to land the "big" US TV contract. And even if they get a decent contract, to say it will ever be on par with Football or Baseball is not living in reality.

Maybe ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. know something that Bettman refuses to accept.... the vast majority on Americans just don't give a crap about hockey and never will.

I think what happened, looking back, in the 90's when NHL was getting some movement in the states, the NHL was thinking they were on their way-then of course lockout and every thing, and I think they are still thinking they can get to those levels or higher, and sustain them.

The NHL has to do what I did over this past year: Take a good look in the mirror and say "This is who I am", and work to their strengths and work around that. But they've charted this course, and won't be swayed from it.

 

[AllByDesign]

So the NHL continues to push for that massive US contract to put them on par with the other sports. So, it's really rather sad (in a non business way) that they will "use" the finances of the Canadian franchises to push for a non Canadian aspirations....

Ahhhh, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Every team shares in the national TV contract pie, Canadian or American. The Canadian owners have an equal interest in this aspiration. It is estimated that 1/3rd of league generated revenues comes from the Canadian markets while they only represent 1/5th of the teams in the league. A sweet American TV deal could sku that percentage back into proportion.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Ahhhh, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Every team shares in the national TV contract pie, Canadian or American. The Canadian owners have an equal interest in this aspiration. It is estimated that 1/3rd of league generated revenues comes from the Canadian markets while they only represent 1/5th of the teams in the league. A sweet American TV deal could sku that percentage back into proportion.

Oh, I know it's good for the Canadian franchises(the ones that currently exist)-I am just seeing things more clearly now.

The question is, will the NHL ever "get" that sweet TV deal?

 

[AllByDesign]

The NHL has been trying for 40 years to land the "big" US TV contract. And even if they get a decent contract, to say it will ever be on par with Football or Baseball is not living in reality.

Maybe ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. know something that Bettman refuses to accept.... the vast majority on Americans just don't give a crap about hockey and never will.

They have had big National contracts. Bettman's first was in 94 to FOX for 5 years. He quadrupled the revenue from FOX when they made a national TV contract with ABC that expired in 2004. Since then they have been in a television partnership with NBC which is set to expire at the end of this season.

Prior to Bettman the NHL had never had a national US TV contract. After the southern markets were put in place they scored a very lucrative deal. It is reasonable to accept the logic of the BOG's that a new TV deal is in the cards. After the NHL signed with ABC/ESPN the game got very tired. It wasn't a surprise that the league was leeft without any takers in 2004. The new rule changes have made the game more interesting and the ratings have been rising. In the end, a combination of ratings and large market presence will be a feather in the cap of the NHL as it negotiates its next contract.