Bettman must be fired

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Brent Burns Beard, Jan 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Look, if the league is in as bad a shape as he says it is, then why hasnt he been fired for leading the league into this mess ?

    If hte league is so bad that euthanizing it is to the only way to save it, why hasnt he been fired ?

    so what is it ? is the league is terrible shape or should he keep his job ?

    if i ran a company into the ground that has had this much revenue growth, i would be fired. and so would just about any other corporate leader.

    dr
     
  2. misterjaggers

    misterjaggers Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Grad student
    Location:
    The Duke City
    The NHL blames the the NHLPA's unwillingness to renegotiate the CBA for its financial predicament:
    "Let's be clear on where the responsibility lies for where we find ourselves today: it lies exclusively at the feet of union leadership who, despite numerous and repeated approaches by the league over many years, utterly ignored — and, in some cases, knowingly exacerbated — the financial distress the league was experiencing," Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer, told The Canadian Press via e-mail from New York.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050107.wnhl7/BNStory/Sports/
     
  3. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    and who here buys this financial situation is NOT the fault of the owners ?

    so, anyhow, if Bettman negotiated such a crappy deal, or allowed the league to become in such a mess that they must euthanize it, either way, he should take the sword.

    dr
     
  4. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's lots to criticize Gary about, but the 1994 deal isn't one of them. The owners cracked on that one and left him holding the bag. He did the best he could without a unified ownership.
    And if we're talking about Bettman taking the sword, Goodenow should be right behind him in the hari kari line. The people he's paid well to represent are about to lose a combined $1.5 billion because is his vast misjudgment of owner resolve and refusal to consider anything approaching cost certainty. That's $1.5 billion those players will never see again. Making matters worse, there's nothing to make it seem the players are likely to get a better deal in September than the one they can get now. Bravo, Bob.
     
  5. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1.3 billion to be more accurate.
     
  6. Hasbro

    Hasbro Can He Skate?! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    39,242
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Drone
    Location:
    South Rectangle
    I've said it before, I wish Bettman would make his resignation a bargining chip with the PA.
     
  7. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    Exactly. I laugh at these NHLPA apologists & idiot players who natter on about Bettman been at fault for the state of the game, & cite the 94 CBA .Firstly, if these clowns had any clue what happened they would know that it was not Betmens wish that that abomination be ratified, but a few wealthy owners somehow convinced the rest of the owners, & Betmen weas not in favor of that agreement.
    Secondly, it seems to me every time the apologists cite the horrible deal the owners made & pin it on Bettman, they implicitly acknowledge that there is a huge structural problem, something they will not openly acknowledge.
    Lastly, do they actually believe Bettman is the problem & if he is gone, the problems suddenly go away. If so, the apologists are absolutly out to lunch.
    And btw DR, Bettman cannot control what individual owners do once the CBA is ratified . He cannot stop owners from signing players to idiotic contracts which is largely the cause of the current problems. To do so would be collusion.
     
  8. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. I wouldn't blame him for the deal in 94 but he did renew this CBA not once but twice. And Bettman knew when he renewed that the league was in trouble. But he found ways to keep most of these owners going by expanding the league (expansion fees gave about $10 mil per team) which many people feel has caused the quality of the league to dimish. It was Bettman that made all kinds of changes to the rules that the league is now trying to correct. I think Bettman regardless of the result of the lockout has not been that good for the game of hockey and should be fired.
     
  10. Winger98

    Winger98 Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,583
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Cleveland
    sweet, win-win for hockey and its fans. I don't care for either of these people and if both could get the axe because of this mess, then going without hockey for awhile might be worth it.
     
  11. Yes firing Gary Bettman will some how make the economic problems go away. The players are the problem, and once they realize Bob Goodenow is gonna loose them more money then they will be able to get back, Bob will be the one fired not Bettman. If it wasnt for him the players would still be stuck with 950K average salary right now.
     
  12. Reilly311

    Reilly311 Guest


    if I see one more post where someone spells "lose" as "loose" I'm gonna scream. :eek:
     
  13. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY

    Two representatives of the NHLPA shall be invited to attend
    and to participate in all meetings of the General Managers
    Committee in which playing rule changes are addressed.


    http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement22.asp

    How does Bettman get so powerful that he can impose rule changes over the General Managers Committe? It doesn't give a lot of information here, but doesn't this committe decide how the rules should be changed, and then the changes have to be voted on by all the GM's to become effective?
     
  15. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest


    Well that makes it so much better.
     
  16. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    The difference is immaterial to the PA members. Gee Bob, you've cost us 1.3 Billion we'll never get back fighting a battle we can't possibly win, but at least it isn't 1.5 B like some reporter wrote. YAYYYYYYY!!!!! Drinks all around.
     
  17. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,962
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    No, he's not wrong really, it's just the old salary/benefits stuff again.

    The players get 75% in salary and benefits. Salaries I believe are $1.3, benefits like per diems, pension donations, etc make up the rest.

    He did make the mistake of just calling it salary however.

    And of course, that was last year. With so many players unsigned, we don't actually know what the actual number for salary would have been this year. With the usual raises, it may just be $1.5 billion.
     
  18. Kaiped Krusader

    Kaiped Krusader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rylan up the Opposition
    That's an excellent point. The PA and its backers can't have their cake and eat it too.

    If I see one more person who doesn't know that you capitalize the first word of every sentence then I'm going to scream.
     
  19. misterjaggers

    misterjaggers Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Grad student
    Location:
    The Duke City
    Bob thinks he's re-fighting the 1994 battle, his moment of glory.
     
  20. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    its Bettman who claims the deal is no good. i am simply sayng, if its as bad as he says it is, he should pay the price for that.

    dr
     
  21. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You continue to miss the point. The '94 deal wasn't Bettman's deal. It was the one foisted upon him by the owners that gave way to the union. You're demanding he be held responsible for a deal which he didn't want. Do you also blame Democratic voters every time Bush does something dumb?
    Again, there's a lot to which one can be critical of Bettman. Over expansion? Sure. Bad TV deal? Absolutely. Inability to get a deal this time without a long lockout? Sure.
    But the 1994 CBA? Nope.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2005
  22. Gary

    Gary Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Laser Printer Technician
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines
    Home Page:
    And why did the owners cave to the players in '94 in many peoples oppinion? Because they wanted hockey up and going to showcase itself for the first time at the Olympics...The NHLPA had them over a barrel without much of a bargaining stance and Bob knew that and knew the financial problems that would occur if that system was allowed to continue as well but did nothing to resolve it. This time, Bob has it in his mind that the NHL needs them just as bad-But with attendance falling, popularity mediocre at best, and teams citing bankruptcy-Well that's just not the case this time around and it's about time Bob realized where he stands...
     
  23. likea

    likea Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and lets not forget why the owners had to extend this CBA back 5 years ago

    baseball had placed a bad taste in everyones mouth when it came to lockouts/strikes

    the owners hands were forced because they would not have the support they now have....right now 80% are behind the owners and they will return when the league comes back.....that is a powerful stance
     
  24. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    Can you not understand. He was against the deal. He take's his instructions from the owners. Do you also think the mail boy from 94 should be canned & if so, what would that accomplish in the present dispute.
    Ands besides which, what does that have anything to do with whats right at this time?
     
  25. Not a damn thing, but it sure sounds good to place the blame on someone! ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"