Bettman got 4% raise last year

[JMROWE]

Why does it "deserve" an NHL team? Simply because it's a big area? An area that is in the Leafs market. An area that was championed by someone who refused to play by the rules the NHL set forth? I don't see anything that shows Hamilton "deserves" an NHL team.

Hamilton is not in the leafs market MLSE. just thinks Hamilton market belongs to them when the truth is Hamilton is its own market that caters to the rest of south western ontario . The fact is what MLSE. & the sabers have been doing for past 20 + years to Hamilton has been ilegal & violated every business compition rule in the book how do I know this simple Jim Balsille uncovered this information during the coyotes fiasco in 2009 & from what I herd the CCB. is watching MLSE. if try pull the same old stunt again well they will be in big trouble .

 

[5lidyzer19]

Hamilton is not in the leafs market MLSE. just thinks Hamilton market belongs to them when the truth is Hamilton is its own market that caters to the rest of south western ontario . The fact is what MLSE. & the Sabres have been doing for past 20 + years to Hamilton has been ilegal & violated every business compition rule in the book how do I know this simple Jim Balsille uncovered this information during the coyotes fiasco in 2009 & from what I herd the CCB. is watching MLSE. if try pull the same old stunt again well they will be in big trouble .

There isn't a team available right now. Be patient and maybe someday there will be via expansion or relocation and Hamilton's prospective owners can go about it the right way.

 

[JMROWE]

I'm surprised at the number of Bettman supporters. Must be Americans.

I agree most of Bettman's supporters are ethier American or from Toronto also I do see some supporters of Bettman that are from Winnipeg but what do you expect they got there team back I would be saying the exact same thing if Hamilton got a team .

 

[JMROWE]

There isn't a team available right now. Be patient and maybe someday there will be via expansion or relocation and Hamilton's prospective owners can go about it the right way.

Phoenix Coyotes

 

[KevFu]

I'm surprised at the number of Bettman supporters. Must be Americans.

I agree most of Bettman's supporters are ethier American or from Toronto also I do see some supporters of Bettman that are from Winnipeg but what do you expect they got there team back I would be saying the exact same thing if Hamilton got a team .

Really? I think we've seen like 1-2 Bettman supporters. Most people who appear to be "supporters" are just offering a rebuttal to misinformation.

There's a HUGE difference between saying "Bettman's super at his job. He's awesome. So glad he's our commish" and someone making statements like mine.

I'm merely pointing out illogical connections of blame to circumstantial events ("teams moving are the commish's fault"), inconsistent applications of logic (some teams that moved are failures, but other cities got screwed"), and totally erroneous claims ("Bettman brought about southern expansion").

For me, it's no different that a discussion of Rick DiPietro's contract. It's a stupid contract and never should have been that long. But if someone says it screws the Islanders, dooms them to cap hell, or is the worst contact in the league, I'm going to say "Uh, no, it's not. The contract hasn't prevented them from competing or bringing in better players (their crappy arena/revenue streams have); Islanders have made incentive based signings to get to the FLOOR, so it doesn't screw them. They can't possibly hit the CAP CEILING until an arena is approved anyway, and the target date for that is 2016; and it would be the worst contract in the league for another team to take on, but it doesn't hurt the Islanders, whereas someone else's deal might."

Doesn't make me support the contract, it just makes me a realist.

 

[Brewsky]

Now if he moves Florida, Phoenix to Canada...he'll see even bigger raises.

 

[skywarp75]

but Kevfu, Bettman is good at his job, and his bosses know they are lucky to have him.

 

[pucky]

Yeah, funny thread...defending Bettman of all people....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ttmans-salary-tops-75-million/article2108823/

I like this comment:

"His salary doubled in 5 years! During that time Phoenix went bankrupct and Atlanta had to move, Lightning lost 30 million last year. The Panthers, Islanders, Nashville and more Southern teams are thinking of folding or trying to move. Many of those teams are unable to spend the salary cap minimum without losing money.

There is no great US television contract and the NY Islander radio play by play is done by a university radio station. The league is #5 or lower in the North American sports pantheon. This is not a picture of a healthy league even if Bettman's bank account is doing just fine.

Perhaps once a few teams fold (which seems increasingly likely) Bettman will do something he should have done long ago-resign!"
-end of comment

Bettman was able to please the majority of the owners but that doesn't equate with being a good thing for the League or for NHL hockey in general. He just helped a bunch of rich fat cats profit and that is the bottom line.

 

[PlagerBros*]

Hamilton is not in the leafs market MLSE. just thinks Hamilton market belongs to them when the truth is Hamilton is its own market that caters to the rest of south western ontario . The fact is what MLSE. & the Sabres have been doing for past 20 + years to Hamilton has been ilegal & violated every business compition rule in the book how do I know this simple Jim Balsille uncovered this information during the coyotes fiasco in 2009 & from what I herd the CCB. is watching MLSE. if try pull the same old stunt again well they will be in big trouble .

All it takes is a BoG vote, but the BoG does not deem a team in Hamilton to be ok at this point and a big part of the reason is that it would be in the Leafs home market. If it was illegal then why was it not ruled so in 2008?
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02641.html

I also wonder why teams like the Ducks, Islanders and Devils had to pay territorial fees when they joined the league or moved to their current location?

It's clear that you are simply bitter and therefore can't see/ignore the facts.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Yes, but if you let Ike have free reign, who knows what he might say?

The truth, as always.

I just like pointing out that if you add franchises, revenues will grow as well

Revenues have grown considerably for non-expansion teams, as well (perhaps more importantly) their value is far improved.

or if the CAD increases by 40%, you're bound to get some bump

It has already been mathematically shown to you that the growth of CAD cannot (as in, it is impossible for it to) be responsible for a significant portion of NHL growth.

depending on the time period under discussion. Hence my request as to what is specifically being credited here. I mean, if we can't blame him for the expansion, then why does he get credit for the additional revenues when you add 8 teams, which together add $60 MM/yr in HRR?

Pretty easy question. You can't "blame" him for expansion that a few of the Canadian media can't stand exist because he wasn't the commissioner when they were rewarded, but you CAN credit him for revenues increasing for those teams. I see you've found a new refuge to hide under, the idea that the massive growth in revenue under Bettman is now due simply to there being more teams. This ignores, of course, the fact that the revenues did not jump to the new level when they were added and then sat flat, which is what would be expected if your story were true. Revenue instead grows year after year without the number of teams increasing.

I also pointed out before that national TV money grew, then fell flat for about a decade, and now is back on track, which if adjusted for inflation and that it took 18 yrs to get here is hardly a massive accomplishment.

A better way to look at it would be to admit that Bettman did in fact give the league a huge TV deal, only to have it not pay off dividends simply because the hockey wasn't worth watching and didn't bring in the potential new fans. Last I checked Bettman isn't the one down there on the ice. The best salesman in the world can't sell unadulterated poop. All he can do in that regard is try to make the game as interesting as he could, but ALL rule changes suggested by the league were opposed by the NHLPA, yes even the ones that were implemented after the lockout and clearly improved the game by breaking the dead ice era. And now he has another good one, and no reason to think it won't continue to grow.

Isn't that the issue though, Jesse? There have been some painful ownership changes/issues since the lockout, and are we really only looking at one relocation? (Or even the dreaded word--- contraction?)

I don't know, tbh, but we have some unresolved and pressing matters with at least one franchise, and possibly some problems with another 1-2 in foreseeable future.

The degree that this is characterized as some sort of disaster is constantly overstated. Team situations change, the league adapts with them.


Contrary to the claims of some I do not simply blindly glorify everything Bettman does. The simple fact is everything he DOES do has been on solid logical ground, and if not everything works, the ones that don't at least looked like reasonable efforts to make judging by risk vs reward. Claims that he does things for spite or some personal bias are of course as laughable now as they've always been.

The evidence there to support Bettman is massive and undeniable. It is much more interesting to look at the motives and what passes as "evidence" for those who hate him. JMRowe is a great example - apparently Bettman is the worst thing that ever happened to hockey because he hasn't given a team to Hamilton, and no other reason that hasn't been thoroughly debunked over and over. Invariably all the 'haters' fall into similar argument categories - personal dislike of something that objectively is quite sustainable as a position does not equate to doing a bad job, it just means he didn't do what someone wanted him to do. Such is life.

As for whether or not he has delegated well, the fact is his lieutenants over the years, on either side, be them Burkie, Daly, Campbell, or whoever, have been very qualified for what they were put there to do. Not all of them have consistently performed at the highest level but none were unqualified to do it. I don't like Campbell's reasoning on things either and hopefully we'll get better decisions from now on. But I am not so arrogant to say I knew Campbell would flake out on the last couple years of his employment before he was hired. Nor can I say that it is inarguable that his decisions were wrong, even if I disagree with them (and many I do).

 

[smithy]

Accomplishments: salary cap anyone? Basically saved the league. And he's grown revenues substantially, but that may have more to do with changes to the nature of professional sports than shrewd management.

 

[KevFu]

Yeah, funny thread...defending Bettman of all people....

I like this comment:

"His salary doubled in 5 years! During that time Phoenix went bankrupct and Atlanta had to move, Lightning lost 30 million last year. The Panthers, Islanders, Nashville and more Southern teams are thinking of folding or trying to move. Many of those teams are unable to spend the salary cap minimum without losing money.

There is no great US television contract and the NY Islander radio play by play is done by a university radio station. The league is #5 or lower in the North American sports pantheon. This is not a picture of a healthy league even if Bettman's bank account is doing just fine.

Perhaps once a few teams fold (which seems increasingly likely) Bettman will do something he should have done long ago-resign!"
-end of comment

Bettman was able to please the majority of the owners but that doesn't equate with being a good thing for the League or for NHL hockey in general. He just helped a bunch of rich fat cats profit and that is the bottom line.

-- year to year profit/losses are not the sign of long-term viability at all. The Red Wings drew 8,000 and lost money in the 80s. BFD. Franchises aren't a mom-and-pop business that puts food on the table for the owners. They are one part (often a tax shelter part) of a billionaire's portfolio.

-- NO ONE is thinking of folding. Nashville and Florida are not looking to move. Florida has like 17 years left on their lease.

-- The Islanders have been trying to get an arena deal done for close to 20 years now. The NHL commissioner does not have the power to control the Town of Hempstead's zoning commission, the state of New York's budget and TOH, NYS, and Nassau County's tax codes. But Gary Bettman has provided the Islanders with leverage over the politicians time and time again. HE GREW UP ON LONG ISLAND, and he's been saying since day one that without a new arena, Long Island will lose it's Islanders; because that's when politicians act (See also: Pittsburgh). And it's 2011, who listens to games on the radio? More people probably watch on the phone than listen on radio.

-- Teams that relocated did so due to circumstance, not commissioner negligence. A horrible CBA he inherited, a bad Canadian dollar, and an inability to build new arenas led to WIN and QUE moving.

-- The US TV contract for the NHL went from $7 million under Zeigler on SportsChannel (which wasn't even national) to a peak of $120 million under Gary Bettman. Maybe it's not the billion dollar deal of the NFL, but a 1714% increase in TV revenue is pretty decent.

-- The salary floor comment should have led to the realization that Gary Bettman GOT THE CAP AND FLOOR in the last CBA, and it's the best CBA in sports.

-- #5 in the North American Pantheon... (a) please, lots of soccer FANS don't even watch MLS and (b) when was it ever higher than Baseball, Basketball and Football? Never.


Bettman's screwed up a lot of things. But we never even talk about them anymore.

The #1 thing Bettman did wrong was continue with expansion when four teams relocated. He needed to stop, find the cities that SHOULD have hockey, wait for SJ, TB, OTT, FLA, ANA, DAL, COL, PHX, and CAR to cement themselves as hockey markets, and re-assess who would be the ideal cities for #27, #28, maybe #29 and #30. And if they didn't have the means of being an NHL city, tell them how to get there, and give them a deadline.

MIN, HOU should have been announced and added for 2002.
After the new CBA enabled a city like Winnipeg to be viable, it should have been "ok, Winnipeg and Quebec, you've got two years to get the go ahead to build arenas. If not, it's gonna be two of Atlanta, Columbus and Nashville."

 

[knorthern knight]

Your list sounds like a list of excuses. It's his job to make the league look good and manage owners.

How, pray tell, does somebody "manage" their bosses? Remember, the BOG hires and fires the Commissioner, not visa versa. Bettman is merely the monkey. The BOG is the organ-grinder.

 

[Grimace]

I agree most of Bettman's supporters are ethier American or from Toronto also I do see some supporters of Bettman that are from Winnipeg but what do you expect they got there team back I would be saying the exact same thing if Hamilton got a team .

what i posted was a joke, thats why i put the smiley face. i dont know of anyone who likes bettman just because we got a team back. people who disliked bettman before still dislike him now and people who liked him before, i've never met one myself but i hear they exist and ride unicorns, still like him.

bettman is NOT the reason we got a team back.

 

[Fugu]

How, pray tell, does somebody "manage" their bosses? Remember, the BOG hires and fires the Commissioner, not visa versa. Bettman is merely the monkey. The BOG is the organ-grinder.

Pete Rozelle. (I also hear Stern manages his bosses quite well.)


That's just another one of those excuses. If you can't blame him for the league's inadequacies because he cannot manage his bosses, how is it gets credit for the growth? What exactly did he do to enable that growth?

 

[bbud]

wasted money on another trough eater

 

[Trottier]

Check the league's increased revenues. Then criticize his raise. (And look foolish in the process.)

Make your bosses money and you earn a reward. Business 101.

 

[Butch 19]

--

Bettman's screwed up a lot of things. But we never even talk about them anymore.

The #1 thing Bettman did wrong was continue with expansion when four teams relocated. He needed to stop, find the cities that SHOULD have hockey, wait for SJ, TB, OTT, FLA, ANA, DAL, COL, PHX, and CAR to cement themselves as hockey markets, and re-assess who would be the ideal cities for #27, #28, maybe #29 and #30. And if they didn't have the means of being an NHL city, tell them how to get there, and give them a deadline.

MIN, HOU should have been announced and added for 2002.
After the new CBA enabled a city like Winnipeg to be viable, it should have been "ok, Winnipeg and Quebec, you've got two years to get the go ahead to build arenas. If not, it's gonna be two of Atlanta, Columbus and Nashville."

Good points. This would have been much more logical than what happened.

 

[Inkling]

Check the league's increased revenues. Then criticize his raise. (And look foolish in the process.)

Make your bosses money and you earn a reward. Business 101.

Revenue =/= profit. Revenues also have increased significantly since 1993 for all professional sports leagues. You'd need to see a breakdown of revenue growth/team against other leagues since the NHL has expanded more than other leagues and you can't give Bettman credit for revenue growth simply due to expanding.

That said, there's no question Bettman would not still be around if a majority of the owners weren't happy with the job he's done. Whether he's good for the game is a separate question and is what some people here are probably debating.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

wasted money on another trough eater

What does this even mean? Can you elaborate?

 

[Fugu]

Check the league's increased revenues. Then criticize his raise. (And look foolish in the process.)

Make your bosses money and you earn a reward. Business 101.

Fine. We'll do it your way. Tell me how much NHL revenues increased/decreased during his 18 yrs, and individual team revenues (local revenues for gate, in-arena and local TV, sponsors) don't count as league revenues.

If MLSE has found ways to capitalize on their captive market and earn $41 MM from TV locally each year, does Gary get credit for that or MLSE?

 

[Fugu]

Revenue =/= profit. Revenues also have increased significantly since 1993 for all professional sports leagues. You'd need to see a breakdown of revenue growth/team against other leagues since the NHL has expanded more than other leagues and you can't give Bettman credit for revenue growth simply due to expanding.

That said, there's no question Bettman would not still be around if a majority of the owners weren't happy with the job he's done. Whether he's good for the game is a separate question and is what some people here are probably debating.

Obviously they're happy with him, but a 4% raise doesn't scream "CEO-leve" compensation in the USA these days for a growing business.

They wanted a cap and new CBA, and he delivered. One of the points I've been making though is to be careful what you wish for because the cap range system has been painful for some teams. Also teams like the Ducks and Isles who are in similar straits to say Phoenix or Atlanta or SJ, for example, but are disqualified from revenue transfer payments.

The problem was the revenue side, not the cost side.

 

[Trottier]

Fine. We'll do it your way. Tell me how much NHL revenues increased/decreased during his 18 yrs, and individual team revenues (local revenues for gate, in-arena and local TV, sponsors) don't count as league revenues.

All I know: the cap ceiling is tied to league revenue. It goes up annually (to the chagrin of a few fans who apparently don't like businesses to bring in more money). It would not go up if revenues were flat or decreasing.

Some may think he has failed on some levels (I certainly don't love everything he has done). But that's missing the forest for the trees. The NHL, as a business, is healthier than it ever has been. Which is why he is rightly rewarded. That was my only point.

 

[Fugu]

All I know: the cap ceiling is tied to league revenue. It goes up annually (to the chagrin of a few here who apparently don't like businesses to bring in more money). It would not go up if revenues were flat or decreasing.

You and others may think he has failed on some levels (I certainly don't love everything he has done). But that's missing the forest for the trees. The NHL, as a business, is healthier than it ever has been. Which is why he is rightly rewarded. Unless of course, you believe that NHL owners know less about their balance sheets than we do.

Those revenues are only tallied up for cap purposes, not evenly distributed among the 30 members. If we go by NYR's owner's letter two years ago, the NHL (central, shared by 30 teams) accounted for 10% of the $2.7 billion. Let's say they vastly improved and made that 15% in the next couple of years.

That comes out $270-405 MM, or $9-13 MM the NHL would send to each of the 30 teams. This does not take into consideration that the teams send money in the opposite direction to fund the league offices, which as you may know is a not-for-profit, administrative entity. Iirc, they spend ~$80 MM (expenses), with this year's figure probably available in that SBJ article for those with subscriptions.


That means that the remaining $2.3-2.4 billion is all made at the team (local level). What you suggest is that NHL teams have revenues of $76-80 MM each + the $9-13 MM the NHL sends their way (so mid 80's to 90 MM+)--- except that they don't. There are several teams that remain 'revenue challenged', only making it to $70MM range after revenue transfer, which all needs to go towards player costs.

In other words, they're treading water, at best. Their revenue growth is less in real terms (actual dollars, not per cent growth) than that of the bigger teams that are driving the cap upwards. If anything the revenue gap is increasing. Their costs are still increasing well ahead of revenues. I did this exercise for the Carolina Hurricanes, showing that the % of their revenue that was going towards player costs has grown in the last three years. (Haven't seen the numbers for the recent season.)


This isn't about being right or wrong for me. I'd actually be very interested in seeing figures that show teams from the lower end of the revenue scale are doing better somehow. Some numbers would be nice, not just claims that all is better (and not saying you do that, Trottier ).

 

[Trottier]

Some numbers would be nice, not just claims that all is better (and not saying you do that, Trottier ).

Fugu - you raise interesting points and figures, and educated me (at least) along the way.

I guess my question then is this: if things are as uneven as you state economically - and I have no basis whatsoever to dispute your information - why then is Bettman seemingly in good favor among NHL owners? (Not to be confused with many NHL fans' opinion of him.)

As for the franchises treading water: to be sure, that remains part of his challenge as Commissioner. But without putting spin on this, it's not unreasonable to expect that some franchises in any kind of business model of this type are going to underperform, no? I mean, the McDonalds in Sheboygen, Wisconsin certainly does nowhere near as well financially as the one in downtown Manhattan.

I suppose bonafide revenue sharing might address this issue to an extent, but that seemingly is a non-starter.