Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by FLYLine27*, Jan 6, 2005.
Suprised?? You shouldnt be. :
Goodenow gets ripped just as badly.
I was just going to laugh at him to Icono...but we have learned that he never looks at both sides of the facts...just the PA's side.
Sometimes somebodies got to defend the players point of view, this board is so blindly supporting the bumbling owners it's almost disgusting.
Funny in that the article from Newsweek calls him one of the worst managers but then goes on to say that it was the owners and Goodenow that caused the mess, mentions that Bettman is the only CEO not to have hands on control of expenses, would get sued for collusion if he tried to get all his "managers" to do one thing (without a CBA) and says how lucky the owners are to have Bettman leading them through this negotiation....an article stating he's a bad manager that spends it's time explaining why he shouldn't be considered a bad manager. Curious journalism to say the least.
It's called shooting the messenger.
But when certain people have PA-blinders on, they find it difficult to see that, as they gravitate toward anything that says "Bettman sucks".
Once again, how about those Pro-Owner blinders?
(not to you in specific, but in general)
I don't believe the thread starter has a pair of those...
Bettman's bosses are guys like Bill Wirtz, who could care less for polls like this one.
Bettman's just a corporate lackey doing exactly what the owners want. When he made his last proposal, which was a pretty stiff one, several unnamed owners were very peeved with him for giving away too much.
here's the real article,
What the Business Week article seems to imply is that since "this is a crisis that did not need to happen" and that they say Bettman backed down in 1994 and that salary restraints are needed as in Football, Basketball, etc. That would seem to me they think the League should have had this hold-out for what is necessary in 1994. I agree. Now, that's a far different story than implied at the origination of this thread.
What the article fails to mention is that is was the Board of Governors, who at that time needed only a majority, who pushed Bettman to salvage 94-95. At that time, a pile of teams had new arenas to pay off, the NHL had a pile of franchise money (Ott, TB, Ana, Nsh, etc) in their coffers, and franchise values were appreciating. Now no one is lining to buy franchises, paying off expensive arenas is not an issue and Bettman only needs 8 of 30 owners.
In 94-95, Bettman wanted a cap and was ultimately vetoed. The owners are and have always been the problem. They hired him to implement a cap system and then chickened out. That being said its their business and they feel they can run with any system thay see fit. Resistance is futile, NHLPA. Suck it up and find some loopholes in a cap system.
People also forget that Bettman could have shut down the season in 1999 and he even said he knew at that time the current deal wasn't working. So yes the blame of the 2004 lockout is all on him.
Good post Chara. As someone else mentioned this business weekly article is shooting the messenger and clearly does not see the big picture in regards to the economics of the NHL.
Just for the record, people are indeed lining up to buy franchises, even during the lockout.
John McCaw is selling part of his stake in the Canucks to Aquilini Investment Group and Consolidated General is looking to buy a franchise.
You have to break a few eggs to create an omelet...After Bettman wins a salary cap, his name will be shifted to Business Week's list of Best Managers.
Bettman does deserve to be raked over the coals for weak management. His failure to persuade or unite the owners until the situation reached a crisis is a profound management failure. That he allowed himself to be bullied into accepting a poor CBA and he knowingly went along with it shows he lacks the backbone to be a manager at a high level. A great manager will engage in dirty infighting, twist arms, call in favors, and do whatever it takes to impose his will. A great manager will resign rather than go along with something he knows is wrong. In the past decade Bettman has shown he's more concerned with the job title, and security, than he is in doing what's in the best interest of the NHL. I can't imagine events transpiring the way they have if the NHL had a commissioner with leadership qualities who loved and cared about the game. The NFL was lucky to have one in Pete Rozelle. The NHL has a messenger boy.
Buffaloed, I'd say it takes some guts and class to stick to something after making a monumental mistake- which Bettman's done. He didn't run like a coward and leave the NHL to itself. He didn't say "All hope is lost" and resign quietly. He's trying to undo the problems he's created, and that's honourable. I don't like the guy, but there it is.
I disagree entirely. His complicity in the last CBA lent credibility to it as a sound decision and misled everyone affected by it. He needed to stand up and tell the owners if that CBA passes, I'm gone, and I'm going to tell the whole world why. The alarm needed to be sounded 10 years ago, not after the house was in smoldering ruins. Bettman has had chances to undo the damage. He's presided over 2 extensions of the CBA, to insure NHLPA participation in the Olympics and to insure NHLPA agreement to expansion. Those are great things for the players and the only thing Bettman got in return was a reduction of the roster limit by one player. The NHLPA realized a net gain of 66 jobs along with all the endorsement opportunities from the Olympics. Bettman made concessions to get the players to take something they would have made concessions to get. Managers don't come any weaker than that.
Well Buffaloed, i agree with you about Bettman, but for completely opposite reasons. I think the last cba bettman and goodenow negotiated was brilliant in concept and compromise. And it did work. There were mistakes, but they have been corrected, the market is being corrected, i see absolutly no reason a reset in this tweaked adjusted framework couldnt work, Burkes brilliant spin job notwithstanding. Nevertheless I know the owners want a different system and they have to co-operate together to come out of this.
Whether you agree with Forbes numbers or not, they are the same thing that the PA has consistently been calling out the owners on, and we have plenty of historical and current evidence of it. Its no secret or surprise the owners are lying about the revenues - everyone knows it. They have lied about everything. There is nothing about the business of hockey they told us that is true. There is nothing in any of their solutions that adresses any of the problems they pretend they are trying to fix. But many have accepted it, and i dont. Their minimal losses as Forbes would attribute them is totally adressed by non cba related reasons and management choices.
Why did the owners continue to extend this cba that wasnt working? Because they really didnt care if it would cost them some money if the spending would create hype,. interest, and ticket sales and tv contracts. To us it sounds like a lot of money but we are talking about billionaires. They didnt care about losing this money, it was a pittance, a business expense. All of a sudden it is a huge threat that they cant continue where they choose the salaries. A system must be found where they dont have to pay the market value they would otherwise assign if left to their own devices. Otherwise Pit, Nash, and Edm wont survive. Except, the owners arent even proposing to help them survive.
These clown care nothing about hockey. They are willing to shut down the league for 2 years in their arrogance, will lose an NLRB ruling, will be sued by the PA for hundreds of millions of dollars and will have to settle on some market cba. And they dont care because, they know they can operate in a market and will let the weak ownes die. And who does it hurt? Nobody. The owners will still be billionaires so all hockey fans will be happy.
This battle is still owner vs owner. The players have put forth a solution that will work for them if they work for themselves, and are willing to compomise hugely. They are deparate to play. If the owners dont care, then we will have to wait until they do.
Wow. Stunningly wrong on virtually every aspect of this situation. It's like you are the articulate version of FLYLine4LIFE.
No one was lining up to buy the Montreal Canadiens. No one is lining up to buy the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. I'm sure there are many other examples. Just because 5-6 franchises are still doing well doesn't mean the NHL is a good business affair. Overall, it's quite the contrary, meaning only select markets can make money. Since I doubt anyone would be interested in a league of 6 teams again (and mostly, that league probably could not concurrence a league composed with the other teams even if it sported the best players), I'd say you need a vast majority of healthy franchises for the league to go forward.
Billionaires generally dont line up for franchises. Its not a good way to get one for a good price. Better to glide like a vulture and swoop after convincing everyone you are the only one who can make an offer.
Separate names with a comma.