Bettman comments @ ASG 2011

[AllByDesign]

I agree about your clients, and the NHL's. If your clients are unhappy, they will choose to spend their money elsewhere. If we are customers of the NHL, we have the same option available. How many times have you and I both posted that other options like Major Junior and the AHL are in fact attractive alternatives?

I agree, the CBC isn't about to start changing to the official broadcaster of the AHL. To say the decision has no bearing.... hard to quantify. I look at it like this... CBC sells 2nd intermission ads at a certain rate. Now, since the Bettman/Maclean interview has turned into a Canadian fascination at the ASG, they sell the adds at a certain premium. At the last minute Bettman pulls out, and the CBC is at a crossroads. Do we stick are advertisers with a bill for the premium, or do we reduce the rate because we can't deliver the event we sold?

Does it kill the relationship between the CBC and the NHL? No... could there be other ways to enforce reprocussions? Its beyond the scope of my knowledge. I do know that the CBC provides the NHL with a plethora of archival footage and professional montages for their ad campaigns at a give-away. Who knows what may be the result.

 

[Whileee]

Reinsdorf's conditions before the illegal attempt to endrun the league through bankruptcy were not the same as the conditions after this had happened and the situation became much, much different. You appear to believe the deal was the same before and after.

Are you sure about that? Please cite a source.

 

[AllByDesign]

Woops, I do take issue on that score ABD. Yes, they "turned the screws" & the tables on him 24hrs prior to closing because it had become glaringly apparent the Cat had ulterior motives, and yes, "he lied to Mario" about it. I find that unforgivable.

How so? Jim wanted the right to move the team on the condition that a new arena doesn't come to fruition in Pittsburgh? Mario had the same terms as well. If a new arena didn't materialize he would sell to outside interests. Same threat, different mouth?

 

[Fourier]

Woops, I do take issue on that score ABD. Yes, they "turned the screws" & the tables on him 24hrs prior to closing because it had become glaringly apparent the Cat had ulterior motives, and yes, "he lied to Mario" about it. I find that unforgivable. Nashville is well documented; Phoenix only here because of his architects idiocy in trying an end-run through BK court. Reinsdorf wouldve' owned that team Spring 2009. The guy played the game in the boardroom about as cleanly as Gordie Howe played it on the ice. Cut out the palms of your gloves, insert some metal washers in your elbow pads.... He's also far too litigious for his own good. Who the Hell wants a partner like that?.

I support Hamiltons' ambitions, however, with friends like that who needs enemies, as if MLSE & the Sabres werent' enough of an obstacle.... just sayin. Have at er'.

Of course Mario and his friends were also playing the movement card to extract concessions for the arena. Mario stated in a story after the fact that his visits to KC and Vegas were simply to have a few nice meals:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_582923.html

Not a lot of white hats to go around in that deal.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Why does Mr. Teflon get a pass on the FACT he hasn't been able to secure a major TV contract? The other 3 big sports have. Everyone wants to give this guy a pass because he put a salary cap in place. But when it's brought up that he has at least 2 failing franchises it hush hush he's doing a great job. He makes Bud Selig look great. Ok now start with the if you don't like it watch something else. That the problem I unlike GB grew up playing and watch hockey and care about the game. I'd GB has rarely even been on skates. So many are blinded by the glare off his Teflon and can't him for what he is. A weaselly, disingenuous, holier than thou lawyer and not a hockey person.

 

[Killion]

Of course Mario and his friends were also playing the movement card to extract concessions for the arena. Mario stated in a story after the fact that his visits to KC and Vegas were simply to have a few nice meals:
Not a lot of white hats to go around in that deal.

True true. Though Mario's Stetson is from the Biltmore factory, a few miles down the road "as the crow flies" from your locale, as is Daryl Katz's, both being good ole' boys' whose only intent was/is to posture. Nothin like a heapin-helpin of ribs from Oklahoma Joes' in KC or a PorterHouse from Delmonico's on the strip to take your mind off things Fourier.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I agree, the CBC isn't about to start changing to the official broadcaster of the AHL. To say the decision has no bearing.... hard to quantify. I look at it like this... CBC sells 2nd intermission ads at a certain rate. Now, since the Bettman/Maclean interview has turned into a Canadian fascination at the ASG, they sell the adds at a certain premium. At the last minute Bettman pulls out, and the CBC is at a crossroads. Do we stick are advertisers with a bill for the premium, or do we reduce the rate because we can't deliver the event we sold?

Does it kill the relationship between the CBC and the NHL? No... could there be other ways to enforce reprocussions? Its beyond the scope of my knowledge. I do know that the CBC provides the NHL with a plethora of archival footage and professional montages for their ad campaigns at a give-away. Who knows what may be the result.

Perhaps MacLean needs to re-think his idea of an interview. He claims to represent tha players, when apparently he is representing Lindros and the Goodenow people. Journalists learn early on to report the news and maintain a neutral stance, not create news or take one side or another.

I guess CBC is suffering for MacLean's lack of journalisitic integrity.

The lengths to which some folks want people to give others a piece of their minds... The world is not an internet message board.

 

[Killion]

How so? Jim wanted the right to move the team on the condition that a new arena doesn't come to fruition in Pittsburgh? Mario had the same terms as well. If a new arena didn't materialize he would sell to outside interests. Same threat, different mouth?

Not really. Balsillie had absolutely no interest in seeing a new arena come to fruition in Pittsburgh, indeed, he'd have scuttled that ship on the rocks, whereas Marios' threat was more akin to calling someone up, going "here that?. Sssssssss. Thats Dynamite Baby, You better build me that new rink or else!".

 

[Fugu]

So this lack of public access to the commissioner must really be killing the NBA, the NFL and MLB?

The TV Networks and the major sponsors certainly can get access to the appropriate parties.

Rozelle was exceptional with the PR front, and behind the scenes apparently. Also the visionary who set the NFL on the course that has them where they are today.

There are visionaries, and there are functionaries.

And as kdb pointed out, the MLB and NBA have decent contracts in spite of local media deals. I never figured you'd be in the Bettman apologist camp though. You do tend to call them as you see them.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Rozelle was exceptional with the PR front, and behind the scenes apparently. Also the visionary who set the NFL on the course that has them where they are today.

Rozelle was a true builder and visionary. He was also an egotistical autocrat.

There are visionaries, and there are functionaries.

And as kdb pointed out, the MLB and NBA have decent contracts in spite of local media deals. I never figured you'd be in the Bettman apologist camp though. You do tend to call them as you see them.

I find MacLean's conduct in those "interviews" offensive. Every time I've seen them, I get the feeling he is acting like the kid who verbally bullies another kid because he knows he has the group surrounding them on his side. It's not just these interviews, but also the way he treated the Canucks last season in the Auger-Burrows fiasco among other things.

I have never met Ron MacLean, but on TV I think he is an opportunistic bully, who panders to a certain viewpoint.

 

[cptjeff]

Why does Mr. Teflon get a pass on the FACT he hasn't been able to secure a major TV contract? The other 3 big sports have. Everyone wants to give this guy a pass because he put a salary cap in place. But when it's brought up that he has at least 2 failing franchises it hush hush he's doing a great job. He makes Bud Selig look great. Ok now start with the if you don't like it watch something else. That the problem I unlike GB grew up playing and watch hockey and care about the game. I'd GB has rarely even been on skates. So many are blinded by the glare off his Teflon and can't him for what he is. A weaselly, disingenuous, holier than thou lawyer and not a hockey person.

Takes two to tango. You call around, see if there's any network willing to give more money for the NHL than versus. Wait, you mean there's not one? You mean the best offer on the table other than the versus one was "we'll let you play, but we're not paying you anything, and we'll give you a percentage of ad revenue after we've covered costs" from ESPN? The lockout really weakened the NHL's position from a TV contract standpoint. Not to mention that the NBA's deal is one that ABC consistently regrets and would sure as hell not give now.

So on and so forth. You're letting your blind hate get in the way of your logical thinking.

BTW, Bettman was talking about playing shinny when he's on vacation at a place he has in either Vermont or New Hampshire (forget which) on his radio show the other day. And until he became commissioner, he had season tickets to some team or another dating back to his time at Cornell. He was a STH for the isles when working in New York too (insert snide comment to piss of isles fans here). He ain't exactly a stranger to the sport.


Edit: I got confused on the gray section, I was thinking of problems with the deal from the NBA's end. Please no longer consider it to be part of the post. However, since it's been quoted, I'm leaving it so other posters understand what's going on if they read that post.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Takes two to tango. You call around, see if there's any network willing to give more money for the NHL than versus. Wait, you mean there's not one? You mean the best offer on the table other than the versus one was "we'll let you play, but we're not paying you anything, and we'll give you a percentage of ad revenue after we've covered costs" from ESPN? The lockout really weakened the NHL's position from a TV contract standpoint. Not to mention that the NBA's deal is one that ABC consistently regrets and would sure as hell not give now.

So on and so forth. You're letting your blind hate get in the way of your logical thinking.

BTW, Bettman was talking about playing shinny when he's on vacation at a place he has in either Vermont or New Hampshire (forget which) on his radio show the other day. And until he became commissioner, he had season tickets to some team or another dating back to his time at Cornell. He was a STH for the isles when working in New York too (insert snide comment to piss of isles fans here). He ain't exactly a stranger to the sport.

And who spearheaded that effort? So he now has cost certainty and no where to show it. Who imposed a gag order when some of the more powerful owners want to settle the lockout? Who demanded a Super Majority in his contract?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

So let me get this straight. So long as there is some chance of success, even say 1 in 10^10, if things go wrong, Bettman could not legitimately be held accountable.

Of course not. Don't exaggerate for effect. The question is whether the risk was worth the benefit. Don't you play poker? You don't win every hand even if you had the odds. What is the measure for success? Whether your bankroll goes up in general. How's the NHL doing? Something like 600% growth over his tenure, isn't it?

Sounds like he's playing the odds pretty well.

Has anyone ever asked Bettman why he tries so much harder to keep Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. in their current markets today, while teams such as Hartford, Quebec, Winnipeg, and Minnesota left town without a fight? I know the Canadian dollar was a lot weaker in the mid 90's, but what about the U.S. teams that moved? If it has been answered, I have never seen it. Can anyone respond to this?

Question has been answered a hundred times. Bettman has tried as hard as possible for every market that has been under threat, but the ability of the league to fight it along with the actual number of positive possibilities is different for every situation. It's not the lack of effort that killed QC and Winnipeg, but the lack of possible outs (ways to keep the team in place) in the first place.

He got caught in a lie and retracted. It may have only been a lie for 17 seconds, but a lie none the less.

No. He added context.

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.

You admit you have neither the pre-knowledge of what the NHL knew, nor the contextual knowledge of other big businesses, to make this call. Some of the people I suspect you would use as examples were also fooling investment banks and similar at the same time, groups that have far more ability to vett than the NHL does, and were still fooled. Other examples only happened AFTER they were accepted.

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.

Nice sarcasm but you're not actually addressing my point at all. If you can't say what the general rate of business people in big business going "bad" is, you simply can't take issue with the NHL's rate.

If you really learned anything about the mortgage meltown etc, you should have learned that there are a TON of people out there that are trying to make money or claim money on the "grey" side of things, and NO one catches everyone.

You get a lot of "NHL shouldn't have let this guy in", but every instance is conspicuously lacking in "and this is why".

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.

"Another" lie assumes there was a first, which you haven't demonstrated.

Your example doesn't indicate any lie at all. They bought the team as a gamble in case the court decided to allow the bankruptcy sale occur. In other words, a hedge. They cleverly added onto that their own "out" of the lease to enforce their own terms on their sale. This "not want to pay the piper" makes no sense at all. They want to get what they can get because they know they can get it from other sources... Winnipeg. If they can't get at least close to it via putting the screws to Glendale, they'll move it. That's still trying as hard as they can to keep it there, but there is a limit to where that outcome is possible.

Fortune favors the "correct".

Not a poker player, I see. You don't grow without taking some risks. The league (before Bettman) decided to try to take the risk to get a national TV deal by expanding south. It worked, for a while. On-ice issues caused them to lose it (it was boring to watch so the ratings didn't justify the deal). Your "take no risk" attitude might have avoided having to worry about a couple struggling markets... and it also would have led to multiple billions in lost revenue.

The league should thank its lucky stars it didn't listen to people like you. You would have cost them uncounted billions of dollars in your "correct", no-risk attitude. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably do NOT make 7m a year to decide on what risks to make.

The NHL wouldn't allow him to sell to a potnetial buyer outside of Arizona, thus rendering all of his investment worthless. The Bankruptcy was an end run to re-coup as much of his investment as possible. Moyes ended up making out better in the end, than if he hadn't dropped the franchise into bankruptcy, even if he didn't recoup as much as he wanted.

Moyes lost his shirt because of his decision to take it to bankruptcy court. Had he accepted the incoming offer from Reinsdorf he wouldn't have been stuck an unsecured creditor making absolutely nothing on the sale being sued for a LOT of money for breaching contracts. If you think otherwise, there's about thirty threads you need to go back and read.

 

[Killion]

The league (before Bettman) decided to try to take the risk to get a national TV deal by expanding south. It worked, for a while.

For awhile, however IMO the short-lived TV success was a contemporaneous blip to the main prize's; arena & spin-off development's on the ground in any given expansion market. The broadcasting potentialities the sizzle to John Ziegler's expensive steaks. Market selection to a large degree happenstancial based on chequebook & candidate as opposed to any seriously pro-active plan with regards to specific targets. Based loosely on an "optimum" of 30 teams. Minor point. Agree with the rest of your post, medium rare & well done.

 

[Fugu]

Takes two to tango. You call around, see if there's any network willing to give more money for the NHL than versus. Wait, you mean there's not one? You mean the best offer on the table other than the versus one was "we'll let you play, but we're not paying you anything, and we'll give you a percentage of ad revenue after we've covered costs" from ESPN? The lockout really weakened the NHL's position from a TV contract standpoint. Not to mention that the NBA's deal is one that ABC consistently regrets and would sure as hell not give now.

I hadn't heard this before. How do you know they're dissatisfied?

 

[Fugu]

Of course not. Don't exaggerate for effect. The question is whether the risk was worth the benefit. Don't you play poker? You don't win every hand even if you had the odds. What is the measure for success? Whether your bankroll goes up in general. How's the NHL doing? Something like 600% growth over his tenure, isn't it?

Sounds like he's playing the odds pretty well.

He has the CAD and the teams who always made money, except Chicago, to thank for that. Add in the generational talents that boosted Pitt and the Caps, and voila! Bettman has done wonders.

Question has been answered a hundred times. Bettman has tried as hard as possible for every market that has been under threat, but the ability of the league to fight it along with the actual number of positive possibilities is different for every situation. It's not the lack of effort that killed QC and Winnipeg, but the lack of possible outs (ways to keep the team in place) in the first place.

Bettman indeed has worked very hard, and his skills at negotiating and finding ways out of tough spots at times is admirable.

However, since the league continues on fixing the symptoms and not the root causes of their weaknesses, Bettman can work 24/7 and still end up going backwards.

No. He added context.

This is right up there with "the sale is imminent" stuff.

Nice sarcasm but you're not actually addressing my point at all. If you can't say what the general rate of business people in big business going "bad" is, you simply can't take issue with the NHL's rate.

Seems like you answered something, but I'm sitting here scratching the noggin trying to figure out what it addressed.

One thing has NOTHING to do with the other. There is only one NHL and one set of circumstances for them to consider--- how to run a pro sports league in North America, the specific product being hockey.

"Another" lie assumes there was a first, which you haven't demonstrated.

Bettman always, always tells the truth, without equivocation.

Your example doesn't indicate any lie at all. They bought the team as a gamble in case the court decided to allow the bankruptcy sale occur. In other words, a hedge. They cleverly added onto that their own "out" of the lease to enforce their own terms on their sale. This "not want to pay the piper" makes no sense at all. They want to get what they can get because they know they can get it from other sources... Winnipeg. If they can't get at least close to it via putting the screws to Glendale, they'll move it. That's still trying as hard as they can to keep it there, but there is a limit to where that outcome is possible.

Perhaps. Let's just point out though that they didn't pay market value (which was probably negative), but had to come up with a figure that would make a bankruptcy judge happy. Usually you get a discount when you buy things in a bankruptcy court. Wonder why that didn't happen this time. Hmmm.

Not a poker player, I see. You don't grow without taking some risks. The league (before Bettman) decided to try to take the risk to get a national TV deal by expanding south. It worked, for a while. On-ice issues caused them to lose it (it was boring to watch so the ratings didn't justify the deal). Your "take no risk" attitude might have avoided having to worry about a couple struggling markets... and it also would have led to multiple billions in lost revenue.

Oh really? Billions in lost revenues? Please elaborate.

(And if your costs exceed said revenues, you're doing it wrong.)

The league should thank its lucky stars it didn't listen to people like you. You would have cost them uncounted billions of dollars in your "correct", no-risk attitude. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably do NOT make 7m a year to decide on what risks to make.

And I would never hire you as my CFO. Plenty of guys claim they know how to make a lot of money. Very few do. Even fewer can do it in a way where their costs are controlled sufficiently so that at the end of the day----- they are ahead.

I like it when people count up the billions. So again, please elaborate.

Moyes lost his shirt because of his decision to take it to bankruptcy court. Had he accepted the incoming offer from Reinsdorf he wouldn't have been stuck an unsecured creditor making absolutely nothing on the sale being sued for a LOT of money for breaching contracts. If you think otherwise, there's about thirty threads you need to go back and read.

My memory is failing me. What was Moyes going to get in the JR offer?

 

[cptjeff]

I hadn't heard this before. How do you know they're dissatisfied?

Actually, it's the NBA that's screwed on that one, with nonexistent teams getting money, and a pretty decent chunk of it. I got a bit confused there, and I'll go back and edit my post to make that clear.

And who spearheaded that effort? So he now has cost certainty and no where to show it. Who imposed a gag order when some of the more powerful owners want to settle the lockout? Who demanded a Super Majority in his contract?

So he ain't faultless. But he did get what he wanted, and those things will make the league much stronger in the long term. Yeah, it cost him a somewhat larger TV deal in the short term. Considering how the league is thriving right now though, I think he and the owners are fine with that. The more uniform growth resulting from the strengthening of smaller markets probably helps the NHL as a whole, and helps more owners, much more than a hypothetical larger TV contract.

The lockout did not weaken the NHL permanently, just temporarily. But with ESPN terminating the existing deal, the NHL needed a new cable deal right after the lockout.

 

[Rob]

Gary lied but no one died.

 

[AllByDesign]

No. He added context.

He was asked a question and said "no." One of his own quotes was re-read to him and he changed his answer to "yes". He lied. Not a big one... or even an important one... a lie none the less. Ike, I hate semantics, and admire stubborness. If you want to keep professing your point your going to have to find a better avenue.

You admit you have neither the pre-knowledge of what the NHL knew, nor the contextual knowledge of other big businesses, to make this call.

No. Go back and have another read. I stated I have no idea what the NHL did or did not know. I am not in the employ of the league, I do however have contextual knowledge of other businesses due dilligence processes. For all I know, the BOG could use Tarrot cards and Gypsy ladies.

Some of the people I suspect you would use as examples were also fooling investment banks and similar at the same time, groups that have far more ability to vett than the NHL does, and were still fooled. Other examples only happened AFTER they were accepted.

I'm not only refering to Boots in my stance on the league's choice of owners. The locks have been changed on so many doors you'd think these arena's could be considered Co-Ops. You say the NHL is just taking "risk", I say the league are skipping steps because they just need a warm body with deep pockets to control their problem markets.

If you really learned anything about the mortgage meltown etc, you should have learned that there are a TON of people out there that are trying to make money or claim money on the "grey" side of things, and NO one catches everyone.

The de-regulation of the United States lending practices beagn in the 70's with Nixon and continued to spiral into a point of lunacy all the way to George Dubya. The water got murkier every year.

"Another" lie assumes there was a first, which you haven't demonstrated.

I stand by my first example.

Your example doesn't indicate any lie at all. They bought the team as a gamble in case the court decided to allow the bankruptcy sale occur. In other words, a hedge. They cleverly added onto that their own "out" of the lease to enforce their own terms on their sale. This "not want to pay the piper" makes no sense at all. They want to get what they can get because they know they can get it from other sources... Winnipeg

Bettman : We will do everything we can to maintain a franchise in its current location, and use re-location as a matter of last resort.

I maintain that they haven't "Done Everything". Hey Gary... how about selling the team for market value to entice a sale? As Meatloaf said... I would do anything for love, but I won't do that...

Its a lie, and I think Coyote fans should be asking the questions in regards to it.

If they can't get at least close to it via putting the screws to Glendale, they'll move it. That's still trying as hard as they can to keep it there, but there is a limit to where that outcome is possible.

The City of Glendale is trying hard. They are trying to benchpress a weight that would give Lou Ferrigno a tough time. The NHL is doing nothing to assist. The NHL flexed their muscle to prevent an owner they didn't select and a town that they see a huge expansion fee from in the future from owning the team. They managed to maintain the integrity of the process, but has bogged Glendale down with the responsibility of finding an owner for the Coyotes.

Not a poker player, I see.

Bluffing doesn't work in the real world. You better have 'the nuts' if you go all in. I play poker just fine and keep the BS out of my business activities.

You don't grow without taking some risks.

Absolutely. You make risks on imperical data and sound projection based on research and dilligence. Risk is always involved, but your moves have to be "correct". The risk isn't what brings the reward, but the knowledge and follow through of a structured plan.

The league should thank its lucky stars it didn't listen to people like you. You would have cost them uncounted billions of dollars in your "correct", no-risk attitude. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably do NOT make 7m a year to decide on what risks to make.

A very brash statement and tone for the conversation, no? Any venture that I have been a part of has been successful and profitable. I won't be as bold as to profess that I have all the answers. I will tell you that I don't make bets when it comes to my or anyone elses money. If I need more information before making a move, I do so... and in that consult with people who have a proven track record to do so.

This isn't about me though. This is about someone named Ike personalizing a simple question as to "Has Gary Bettman lied?" The odd thing is, that we both agree he is a good commish... we both like him.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

He has the CAD and the teams who always made money, except Chicago, to thank for that.

Your assertion that the Canadian dollar was particularly significant in the growth of league revenues has already been utterly refuted elsewhere. You never did come up with a CAD source for the several hundred million dollars the BEST CASE SCENARIO for your argument required accounting for.

However, since the league continues on fixing the symptoms and not the root causes of their weaknesses, Bettman can work 24/7 and still end up going backwards.

The "root causes" require CBA negotiations to fix. The league is unexpectedly several years ahead of where it thought it was going to be coming out of a lockout and is only now starting to approach where it can bring in a new CBA to reflect current realities, rather than 2004 realities. There's a reason these CBAs only go a few years at a time.

One thing has NOTHING to do with the other.

On the contrary, if you are going to bash the NHL for not properly vetting candidates for ownership, you better be prepared to back their performance up against every other big business situation where someone with supposed big bucks is trying to get into an existing business.

They have EVERYTHING to do with each other. In fact, the fact it is "hockey" has almost nothing to do with it at all, except that people are holding a hockey league to a higher standard than they hold investment banks who are used to dealing with billions of dollars a day and whose ENTIRE BUSINESS revolves around money and who really has it... and were also fooled by many of the same men.

Perhaps. Let's just point out though that they didn't pay market value (which was probably negative), but had to come up with a figure that would make a bankruptcy judge happy. Usually you get a discount when you buy things in a bankruptcy court. Wonder why that didn't happen this time. Hmmm.

Had Balsillie's bid been exposed from the start as non-viable it would have been a different story. The league hedged because you never know which way a judge will jump. He made the right choice in the end but castigating the league for covering it's arse with the benefit of hindsight is disingenuous.

Oh really? Billions in lost revenues? Please elaborate.

(And if your costs exceed said revenues, you're doing it wrong.)

All the revenue from all the southern markets, plus the large TV deals the league received as a direct result of expanding there.

And if you think costs have anything to do with revenues YOU are doing it wrong. Profits != revenues.

And I would never hire you as my CFO. Plenty of guys claim they know how to make a lot of money. Very few do. Even fewer can do it in a way where their costs are controlled sufficiently so that at the end of the day----- they are ahead.

I'm not the head of a multibillion dollar business, but I can recognize one that is well run. One of the things that tends to be a pretty good indicator? Revenues increasing severalfold, even through the worst recession in almost a century.

My memory is failing me. What was Moyes going to get in the JR offer?

The entire offering price. It was his to do with as he wished, but all the debts would still have been counting. Moyes' problem.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I find MacLean's conduct in those "interviews" offensive. Every time I've seen them, I get the feeling he is acting like the kid who verbally bullies another kid because he knows he has the group surrounding them on his side. It's not just these interviews, but also the way he treated the Canucks last season in the Auger-Burrows fiasco among other things.

I have never met Ron MacLean, but on TV I think he is an opportunistic bully, who panders to a certain viewpoint.

If Bettman actually answered questions in other interviews throughout the year I doubt MacLean would feel the need to really hammer on bettman until he gave a decent answer.

Even on some pretty basic questions Bettman has previously tried to dodge them and give non-answers.

About the Auger/Burrows thing....MacLean is a ref...which side did you think he was going to take?

Asking hard questions and pushing for real answers is something the media SHOULD be doing. Not just with Bettman either...with basically everyone they interview. I think you feel the previous interviews with Bettman that MacLean has done have seemed bully-ish because media as a whole has become pretty soft.

Asking a question and trying to get an answer is part of an interview. Asking questions the interviewee might not want to answer is also part of an interview. It's a 'tough' interview, for sure....but that isn't bullying.

The CBC pays the NHL, and I previously thought part of that deal was that Bettman would make time for these interviews, so when a member of the CBC interviews a member of the NHL...it doesn't have to be some softball love-in. They're a paying customer....last time I've called my IP, Phone Company, airline, etc. I haven't been ultra-nice and courteous either.

If Bettman was a better weasel than he is (could look relaxed, could stop bobbing his head when he gets frustrated, etc) he could handle these interviews no problem. Ron asks the tough questions and Bettman can't handle it, he starts changing the subject, starts giving non-answers...when called on it he gets even worse and worse.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

He was asked a question and said "no." One of his own quotes was re-read to him and he changed his answer to "yes". He lied. Not a big one... or even an important one... a lie none the less. Ike, I hate semantics, and admire stubborness. If you want to keep professing your point your going to have to find a better avenue.

Wrong. As the question became more detailed he simply adjusted to the different context of what was being asked. The initial "no" does not mean what you think it means, Bettman was simply rejecting the slant MacLean was attempting to put on the situation. It's not a lie.

And don't presume to give me advice on my own points.

No. Go back and have another read. I stated I have no idea what the NHL did or did not know. I am not in the employ of the league, I do however have contextual knowledge of other businesses due dilligence processes. For all I know, the BOG could use Tarrot cards and Gypsy ladies.

I have no need to do anything of the sort. You don't have the required specific info to make the claim you did, and have admitted such.

One would think that if you have acknowledged you have no idea what the NHL did or didn't know should be a hint that you probably aren't in a position to castigate them for the outcome.

I'm not only refering to Boots in my stance on the league's choice of owners. The locks have been changed on so many doors you'd think these arena's could be considered Co-Ops. You say the NHL is just taking "risk", I say the league are skipping steps because they just need a warm body with deep pockets to control their problem markets.

Yes, you are, but as you have admitted, you don't actually have any idea what the league is doing to check up on these people nor do you know what information was even available that they should have gotten. In essence, you complain about problems without knowing if there was ever even an alternative. You are arguing from ignorance.

The de-regulation of the United States lending practices beagn in the 70's with Nixon and continued to spiral into a point of lunacy all the way to George Dubya. The water got murkier every year.

And yet, the mortgage meltdown happened anyways.

Regardless, you haven't actually pointed to any comparable "smoking gun" for the league. You apparently simply assume they should have known, presumably via the aforementioned tarot cards and crystal balls.

Guys who hoodwinked major financial institutions managed to also mislead a hockey league with a tiny fraction of the same resources, who would have thought. Next time the league should hire financial experts with access to time machines to satisfy you.

I stand by my first example.

Then we continue to wait for a first lie.

Bettman : We will do everything we can to maintain a franchise in its current location, and use re-location as a matter of last resort.

I maintain that they haven't "Done Everything". Hey Gary... how about selling the team for market value to entice a sale?

"Done everything WE CAN". Omission is more of a lie than anything Bettman has ever said, which puts you one more lie in this very thread than he has ever told. There is a limit to what the league believes is reasonable to do to keep a team in place. This limit has changed over the years and into different situations, but it is not infinite.

Doing everything one can eventually runs into the point where it is no longer feasible to do so. When it was the Jets turn to move, that point was reached when there was no owner, no building, and apparently no hope of ever getting either. It seems that, to you, "doing everything one can" should have included operating the Jets in perpetuity until something changed.

Yes, that's exactly what that means, or you must admit that you are holding the league to different standards now.

Its a lie, and I think Coyote fans should be asking the questions in regards to it.

No, it's you either wilfully or accidentally twisting the situation to pretend it's a lie. You aren't a G&M writer, are you?

The City of Glendale is trying hard. They are trying to benchpress a weight that would give Lou Ferrigno a tough time. The NHL is doing nothing to assist.

This is such a pile of crap right here. If it weren't for the NHL, the team would be gone. You have absolutely NO idea what Bettman personally does to find owners willing to come into situations like this.

No, really, this one statement of yours indicates a BRUTAL lack of understanding of what these people are doing. The league keeps the pressure ratcheted up as part of the give and take of negotiations, to get the best possible deal for their team, because they HAVE that leverage. It's due diligence to do so. This is a GOOD thing. From the league's standpoint, the problems of Glendale aren't really their problem. They've told Glendale what they need to do to pony up to keep the franchise viable and they hold all the cards with the threat of moving the team having cleverly negated the existing lease, turning the bankruptcy turd to gold.

Bluffing doesn't work in the real world. You better have 'the nuts' if you go all in. I play poker just fine and keep the BS out of my business activities.

Nobody said anything about bluffing and the fact you assumed it was being referred to pretty much clinches that you don't really understand poker at all. It's not about bluffing, and if you only play when you have the nuts, you will never win anything. It's about knowing the odds and therefore knowing what bets to take and what bets to fold to.

Every new owner in the league is a risk of some sort in the sense that you can only know so much about them. Sometimes they prove less than worthy, but as you've not actually provided any alternatives for the league to discover the criminals beforehand, your complaints that they don't really can't be taken seriously.

No one respects someone who only complains without offering solutions in return. So be my guest, tell us what the league SHOULD have done, and be specific as to what they did and did not do. Use no evidence that wasn't available at the time. Starting now, you're on the clock.

Absolutely. You make risks on imperical data and sound projection based on research and dilligence. Risk is always involved, but your moves have to be "correct". The risk isn't what brings the reward, but the knowledge and follow through of a structured plan.

So it should be easy for you to show us where the league didn't do its research and diligence, shouldn't it? Clock's ticking.

A very brash statement and tone for the conversation, no? Any venture that I have been a part of has been successful and profitable. I won't be as bold as to profess that I have all the answers. I will tell you that I don't make bets when it comes to my or anyone elses money. If I need more information before making a move, I do so... and in that consult with people who have a proven track record to do so.

And so does the league, and yet here you are complaining that they didn't. My guess is because you think you've been successful at "being a part of ventures", therefore all the league had to do was do the same thing and they would have been as clever about their business dealings as you apparently are.

Seems kinda arrogant, doesn't it?

I guess we'll find out when you post your evidence of a lack of due diligence on the league's part. Tick... tick... tick...

 

[blueandgoldguy]

All the revenue from all the southern markets, plus the large TV deals the league received as a direct result of expanding there.

And if you think costs have anything to do with revenues YOU are doing it wrong. Profits != revenues.

Which Southern markets are you talking about? These markets and "large" tv deals account for billions in revenue?

 

[Jeffrey93]

Yes, you are, but as you have admitted, you don't actually have any idea what the league is doing to check up on these people nor do you know what information was even available that they should have gotten. In essence, you complain about problems without knowing if there was ever even an alternative. You are arguing from ignorance.

Didn't Boots borrow money from Anschutz to pay for his portion of the Predators?

Seems like a simple....
"Hey...anyone know this guy? Anyone done any business with him?"
.....would have yielded at least some information that the league claimed to be in the dark about later. Assuming one of their current members would be on the up and up and actually answer....which is a big assumption I guess.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Ike...if you're claiming when Bettman said everything was "fine" in Phoenix and any report to the contrary is irresponsible reporting isn't a lie....because Bettman believed it was "fine".......

Well.....you're basically saying he didn't lie because he isn't the least bit in touch with reality. So, as long as he believes it is true...that means it isn't a lie.

Besides...he didn't say "I think everything is fine." or "I believe things are fine." he said "Phoenix is fine" or something similar to that.

You're acting like he is giving his opinion and not stating fact. I took his words to be fact not personal opinion. Therefore...he lied.