No, he hasn't. There isn't a single quote that holds up to this "lying" accusation once context is restored. Not a single one.
Maclean : The attourneys submitted that Jerry Moyes retain his title to avoid public embarassment, and you went along with it.
Bettman : No, a lot of things get mis-characterized. When we forwarded monies, Moyes executed proxies to not make any extraordinary acts but could retain his position.
Maclean shuffles papers, umm it says here that you said it was a matter of public embarassment.
Bettman: Correct.
He got caught in a lie and retracted. It may have only been a lie for 17 seconds, but a lie none the less.
This reeks of revisionism. You have NO idea what information was available to the NHL beforehand. Pretty easy to say "you missed steps" afterwards, isn't it?
I haven't altered any facts. It is true, I have no idea what information would have been available on the long list of bad owners that the NHL had given the green light to. I do have an advantage of hindsight. I feel it is reasonable to take my stance based on the sheer volume of failures in a short period of time that the league has had allowed into their realm.
Given what happens in the world of big business as a whole, would it shock you to learn that there is virtually no difference between the NHL and anyone else involved in deals involving tens of millions of dollars? One suspects the only billion dollar business you actually pay attention to to this degree is the NHL itself.
Wow... really??? Thank you for shedding the light on this. I have just been living under an NHL rock for my life... imagine I missed the entire American mortgage meltdown and the death of the world's largest auto manufacturer.
I apologize for speaking directly in regards to the NHL business model on an NHL business discussion forum.
The only "messes" come when an individual member attempts to damage the league itself, ie Moyes and Balsillie trying to illegally use bankruptcy to endrun the league rules, but there's not much the league can do about that.
And, in what they did, they managed to hold their rights which should never have been called into question. They still haven't solved the problem at hand in Phoenix. Which brings us to another Bettman lie... "We are doing everything we can to sell the team to someone who will keep the team in Glendale"
No... No they haven't. I have a chuckle anytime someone says "Bettman should have tried this hard with Winnipeg"... The NHL has been the single entity holding up a deal of the Coyotes to local ownership. I know... you're thinking ABD... you've been drinking again. let's examine...
There have been 3 potential owners attempting to buy the Coyotes. 2 have been eliminated because Glendale wasn't giving enough. The third is hanging in the balance between the GWI and the Bond Market. Anyone ever care to consider that if the NHL just relented and decided to sell the team for actual market value, Glendale would not have to do all of the heavy lifting here? The NHL has done wonders in deflecting blame, but their insistence on not losing $1 on the bankruptcy purchase is the single true entity holding a deal back.
The NHL, as a group, made the decision to buy this team out of bankruptcy in order to make a point. To assert their will. Now they don't want to pay the piper for their decision. Phoenix may suffer as a result.
What about Basille? Keeping him from becoming an owner may have been the best thing the owners have done in a long time.
Basille is a loose canon - the more I learned about him, the more slimey he became.
Balsillie started out playing a clean game, and was left in the lurches bythe BOG by sudden changes in terms. The NHL and Bettman state clearly it was Jim's decision to walk away from Pittsburgh and Nashville, but they turned the screw on him. He resulting public attempts to make the NHL the fool is the most recent recollection in peoples mind so he lives with the moniker provided by that fact.
You can never say never, but Balsillie's case of sour grapes may very well preclude him from ever being an owner in the NHL.
One thing that many posters seem to miss is that the commissioner is not a publicly elected official. The position is not one of public trust. He doesn't owe an explanation of anything to the public.
The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the ownership of the 30 individual teams. The very idea that anyone believes it's their right to ask him "tough" or "easy" questions is laughable. There is one group that can ask tough questions and expect any answers, the owners.
Please show the last time the commissioners of the NFL, NBA or MLB felt the need to be "held accountable" by any TV Network.
Bud Selig had quite a rough go with the media for some time. Somehow you and I will disagree on this topic regardless of what we use as example. I do agree, it isn't the "Right" of the media to speak with Bettman, or any league commish. If I don't make myself available to my customer base, it makes it that much more difficult to retain them as clients. My clients don't have a "right" to discuss any matter with me, but rest assured I make myself available to them, regardless of the matter.
