Strachan has lost his mind

[jaws]

The impression I got from all I read coming out of the last owner's meeting, the group supporting Bettman was more like 20 than 8. And about 6 of the 8 who would settle for the player's 49M cap are content to wait and see how this plays out. I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that Bettman has had to call on his super-majority powers to keep the owners from accepting a bad deal. It looks to me that the owner's are still pretty united...something that drives Strachen and Brooks crazy. at this time, it is a myth that 8 owners are holding the other 22 hostage.

As for Bettman's bonus...I have heard that he will get one if he gets a cap. I have also heard that denied by an owner. I have not seen the numbers you point to...so if you have a source that Bettman is to get a 25M bonus if he gets a cap under 31M, please share it.

Just to clear things up, I agree with you that more than 8 owners support Bettman. The point I was trying to make is that Bettman only needs 8 to make a decision. Now you're never gonna hear about him having to use this power because if that ever did get out, the media would jump all over it and people would be in an uproar. I would also agree that the majority of owners are for the cap and are united, etc. But to believe that all owners are united in this is just as naive as believing all 700 players are united.

As for Bettman's bonus, I've heard a million from the Calgary Herald and $20 million from CJRC 1150 radio in Ottawa (its a french station I believe out of Hull with its flagship station in Montreal). CJRC 1150 also reporded that if the cap is under $31 million, that bonus increases to $25 million. All these numbers, as you pointed out, were denied by the NHL. But again, obviously you're not going to hear anything about what goes on behind close doors, hence that is why the doors are closed. And you're never gonna get the NHL to admit that Gary has a bonus on the line, the same as Mark McGuire will never admit to using steriods....that is until they get caught.

 

[wazee]

Just to clear things up, I agree with you that more than 8 owners support Bettman. The point I was trying to make is that Bettman only needs 8 to make a decision. Now you're never gonna hear about him having to use this power because if that ever did get out, the media would jump all over it and people would be in an uproar. I would also agree that the majority of owners are for the cap and are united, etc. But to believe that all owners are united in this is just as naive as believing all 700 players are united.

jaws...I think you would be hard pressed to find more that 5 regular posters on the Business of Hockey board who are not aware that Bettman only needs 8 votes to reject any proposal he finds unacceptable. Just scroll back through the posts from the last months and you will find it mentioned over and over again. I agree that the owners are not 100% on the same page, but somewhere around 20-24 are, and that is enough.

As for Bettman's bonus, I've heard a million from the Calgary Herald and $20 million from CJRC 1150 radio in Ottawa (its a french station I believe out of Hull with its flagship station in Montreal). CJRC 1150 also reporded that if the cap is under $31 million, that bonus increases to $25 million. All these numbers, as you pointed out, were denied by the NHL. But again, obviously you're not going to hear anything about what goes on behind close doors, hence that is why the doors are closed. And you're never gonna get the NHL to admit that Gary has a bonus on the line, the same as Mark McGuire will never admit to using steriods....that is until they get caught.

I read the article in the Calgary Herald claiming that Bettman would get a bonus. I also read the article in the Herald the following day quoting one of the Flames owners as saying he has negotiated Bettman's contract and that it did not have a bonus clause. As for the radio station report...I would have more questions...like Who said it? What sources were cited? How credible are they generally?

And don't you find it interesting that Bettman was obviously willing to forgo the 25M bonus last month when he put the 42.5 hard cap offer on the table?

 

[Lobstertainment]

how do you lose something that you didn't have in the first place?

 

[jaws]

jaws...I think you would be hard pressed to find more that 5 regular posters on the Business of Hockey board who are not aware that Bettman only needs 8 votes to reject any proposal he finds unacceptable. Just scroll back through the posts from the last months and you will find it mentioned over and over again. I agree that the owners are not 100% on the same page, but somewhere around 20-24 are, and that is enough.

I read the article in the Calgary Herald claiming that Bettman would get a bonus. I also read the article in the Herald the following day quoting one of the Flames owners as saying he has negotiated Bettman's contract and that it did not have a bonus clause. As for the radio station report...I would have more questions...like Who said it? What sources were cited? How credible are they generally?

And don't you find it interesting that Bettman was obviously willing to forgo the 25M bonus last month when he put the 42.5 hard cap offer on the table?

I agree that most if not all the people on here are aware of his "8 owner" clause. Again, I'm just trying to point out the importance of this clause and the fact that he can use it anytime he wants, even if the majority of owners don't agree with him. I'm not suggesting that he has used it, or is willing too, but the fact that it is their should definitley raise more eyebrows than it is.

I also understand and am right with you in questioning the creditiblity of sources. Personally I don't think we can fully trust anyone in the media for everyone is biased, thus their own personal convictions/ties infringe on their own creditiblity. As for where both the Herald and the radio station got their info, I really don't know and even if I or they said they got it from an NHL insider, that info can be just as quickly denied by the NHL itself.

And I really don't find it interesting that Bettman is willing to forgo the $25 million bonus because if he gets any cap at all, and if the radio station is right, than his bonus is instead $20 million.

Now my question to you is that if a cap is so important to the league, and if Bettman was, afterall hired to get a cap, don't you think he would have a bonus if he accomplished this goal? I know if I'm hired to do something that is deemed so important, I better get something extra for getting'er done. And if you do in fact believe that Gary does have a bonus on the line, then perhaps we should go back to question the creditibility of the NHL, who afterall had denied giving a bonus.

 

[wazee]

I agree that most if not all the people on here are aware of his "8 owner" clause. Again, I'm just trying to point out the importance of this clause and the fact that he can use it anytime he wants, even if the majority of owners don't agree with him. I'm not suggesting that he has used it, or is willing too, but the fact that it is their should definitley raise more eyebrows than it is.

Why should it raise eyebrows? The owners know they pulled the rug out from under Bettman the last time around and have taken this route to make sure they don’t weaken and do it again.

I also understand and am right with you in questioning the creditiblity of sources. Personally I don't think we can fully trust anyone in the media for everyone is biased, thus their own personal convictions/ties infringe on their own creditiblity. As for where both the Herald and the radio station got their info, I really don't know and even if I or they said they got it from an NHL insider, that info can be just as quickly denied by the NHL itself.

I do not think you are right with me on questioning sources. You are more than willing to use the numbers for Bettman bonus information from a radio station…and you cannot even tell me who made the claim. Until you do so, I have no reason believe it.

And I really don't find it interesting that Bettman is willing to forgo the $25 million bonus because if he gets any cap at all, and if the radio station is right, than his bonus is instead $20 million.

So it is 25M if he gets a cap under 31M and 20M bonus for any cap at all…again, according to unnamed sources on the radio. Impressive. And convenient. Funny you failed to mention it until I pointed out the flaw in your 25M if under 31M argument.

Now my question to you is that if a cap is so important to the league, and if Bettman was, afterall hired to get a cap, don't you think he would have a bonus if he accomplished this goal? I know if I'm hired to do something that is deemed so important, I better get something extra for getting'er done. And if you do in fact believe that Gary does have a bonus on the line, then perhaps we should go back to question the creditibility of the NHL, who afterall had denied giving a bonus.

I have no reason to believe Bettman will or will not get a bonus and I do not think it matters at all. It is clear, and it has been from the beginning, that the owners were going to require a salary cap.

Why do you think it is important that Bettman was, or was not, promised a bonus? It is as irrelevant as Goodenow not taking any salary during the lockout.

 

[dawgbone]

Just to clear things up, I agree with you that more than 8 owners support Bettman. The point I was trying to make is that Bettman only needs 8 to make a decision.

That is completely wrong.

He needs the support of 8 owners to quash any deal that he doesn't like. He along with Detroit, Toronto, NYR, Dallas, Colorado (insert 3 more random teams) cannot accept a deal on a 8-22 vote.

 

[jaws]

To Wazee:

Why should it raise eyebrows? The owners know they pulled the rug out from under Bettman the last time around and have taken this route to make sure they don’t weaken and do it again.

Of the 26 owners, 19 voted in favour of ending the 94 lockout (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1430-9207/sports/sports_disputes/clip7). Hardly pulling the rug concidering the majority of owners wanted to end the lockout. Moreover, the owners as well as many experts at the time believed the owners had won big. Also, the owners don't work for Bettman, he works for them, it's their call.

Hence the reason why the "8 owner clause" should raise eyebrows, it's unfair. How would you like to be a part of a business and yet have the possibility of your voice being completly ignored because 8 owners and Bettman disagree with you and those that support you? Imagine if Bush only needed 27% of the vote to become President or have the support of 27% of Congress to do something. Owners are ruthless against each other. If one is unpopular, he can be stone walled out of a franchise or given an unfair deal. Its happened before (see Gordon Gund).

I do not think you are right with me on questioning sources. You are more than willing to use the numbers for Bettman bonus information from a radio station…and you cannot even tell me who made the claim. Until you do so, I have no reason believe it.

First, I do question my sources, hence the reason why I don't buy the NHL's cry of poverty - a cry they have been using since 1917. How creditible is this cry now? Sure, the numbers have changed, and the players are benefitting today, but they are still being lied too.

As for the radio station, I never said they're report was a fact or anything, I just threw it out there. Personally I do believe that Bettman has a cap bonus. What it is, or if he actually has one, we'll never know. Its just speculation, just as the actual amount the NHL says they are losing. Sure they say something, pay some guy to do a report, call it an audit even though the guy who did the report said it isn't, in order to make their numbers look like "facts."

The guy they get to do the "audit," Arthur Levitt, was the former head of Securities and Exchange Commission for the US from 1993-2001, so one would assume that he is creditible. However, upon further review, one would also notice that during those years, "...'cooking' the account books of giant corporations reached its height, when the accounting boondoggles at Enron, Worldcom, and a host of others were taking place....the NHL could have chosen a more reputable spokesman." (Edge:131, From the book Red Line, Blue Line, Bottom Line).

Again, in the end this really doesn't have anything to do with creditibilty but who you are willing to believe. Would it really have helped if I told you that Daniel Seguin, Michel Langevin, or Louis-Philippe Brule made the report for CJRC? Would you then believe me? I doubt it.

So it is 25M if he gets a cap under 31M and 20M bonus for any cap at all…again, according to unnamed sources on the radio. Impressive. And convenient. Funny you failed to mention it until I pointed out the flaw in your 25M if under 31M argument.

Actually I did. And I quote myself:

As for Bettman's bonus, I've heard a million from the Calgary Herald and $20 million from CJRC 1150 radio in Ottawa (its a french station I believe out of Hull with its flagship station in Montreal). CJRC 1150 also reporded that if the cap is under $31 million, that bonus increases to $25 million.

That can be found in my post, written yestarday at 8pm (sorry I don't know the post number).

I have no reason to believe Bettman will or will not get a bonus and I do not think it matters at all. It is clear, and it has been from the beginning, that the owners were going to require a salary cap.

Why do you think it is important that Bettman was, or was not, promised a bonus? It is as irrelevant as Goodenow not taking any salary during the lockout.

I disagree. If he had a bonus, he would be less willing to compromise in my books. So I think it is very important if he has that bonus or not. Same goes for Goodenow. Okay, maybe he isn't getting paid now, but what about after? Say he gets another good deal for the players. I'm thinking in return for his services, he gets a very big bonus.

Finally, is it really that clear that the NHL needs a cap? Funny how on 3 different occasions, that wasn't very clear to the owners-who agreed to no cap in 94 and twice extended the CBA-one that now, all of a sudden, is unusable.

P.S. One final note on credibility. What about the creditibility of the owners? Here's a look at just two of them, to get an idea of how "creditble" these guys really are...

Bill Wirtz, owner of the Blackhawks who: has "...repeated antitrust violations, bribery of public officials, stealing from his 'niece's' trust fund, collusion against the NHL players, and the buying of special-interest legislation..." (http://www.careermisconduct.com/).

Eugene Melnyk, owner of the Sens who's company: "Biovail is facing scrutiny from market regulators in both Canada and the United States. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an ''informal review'' into some of Biovail's accounting practices and the Ontario Securities Commission recently disclosed it is investigating trading in the company's shares. The OSC has not said if it is focused on the trading of any specific company insiders" (http://regulators.itgo.com/PI/762A.htm).

 

[PecaFan]

Of the 26 owners, 19 voted in favour of ending the 94 lockout (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1430-9207/sports/sports_disputes/clip7). Hardly pulling the rug concidering the majority of owners wanted to end the lockout.

Paul Weiler says the vote was 17-9. (book Levelling the Playing Field) Having *35%* of your owners being forced to play under rules they think will lead to financial ruin is *extremely significant*.

Hence the reason why the "8 owner clause" should raise eyebrows, it's unfair. How would you like to be a part of a business and yet have the possibility of your voice being completly ignored because 8 owners and Bettman disagree with you and those that support you?

Of course it's fair. The NHL is comprised of 30 different teams, in completely different markets, backgrounds, situations etc. It makes perfect sense that for the league to go forward on something, that the *vast* majority of the league agrees to it.

Big markets alone can't force their will on the group.
Little markets alone can't force their will on the group.
Medium markets alone can't force their will on the group.

It takes most of the league to agree on things that *affect* the entire group. What could be more sensible than that? The only thing better would be 100%, but it's unreasonable to expect every single owner to get onboard.

Personally I do believe that Bettman has a cap bonus. What it is, or if he actually has one, we'll never know.

No, you're wrong. We do know that there is no bonus. The people responsible for the contract have 100% said there is no bonus.

 

[jaws]

Paul Weiler says the vote was 17-9. (book Levelling the Playing Field) Having *35%* of your owners being forced to play under rules they think will lead to financial ruin is *extremely significant*.

Hey listen, having 27% not agreeing with the direction the league is going in is significant. However, it is still a minority and when you put something to a vote, the majority wins, thus their decisions are pushed to the forefront.

Of course it's fair. The NHL is comprised of 30 different teams, in completely different markets, backgrounds, situations etc. It makes perfect sense that for the league to go forward on something, that the *vast* majority of the league agrees to it.

The *vast* majority!?!? How can you consider 8 owners out of 30 to be the vast majority?!?!? Wouldn't the other 22 owners be the *vastly larger* majority? Even if 14 owners voted to do something and 16 owners didn't, yet the NHL sided with the 14, that would still be unfair. The 14 owners lost, the 16 owners won, thus the NHL sides in favour of the side of the majority. That's a fair scenario.

Big markets alone can't force their will on the group.
Little markets alone can't force their will on the group.
Medium markets alone can't force their will on the group.

It takes most of the league to agree on things that *affect* the entire group. What could be more sensible than that? The only thing better would be 100%, but it's unreasonable to expect every single owner to get onboard.

I agree. "Most" of the league means the "majority" of the league. Granting 8 owners the possibility to control things that *affect* the entire group is unsensible. Granting 14 owners the control of an NHL decision over the other 16 owners who opposed the decision is unsensible.

No, you're wrong. We do know that there is no bonus. The people responsible for the contract have 100% said there is no bonus.

They have "said" there is no bonus-therefore you believe them. Well George W. Bush and friends "said" Iraq had WMDs, do you still believe them? They even showed us "evidence" of WMDs, yet in reality, there were none. Let me ask you, have you seen Bettman's contract? Do you know for a fact that their is no bonus? Until you or someone else shows me his contract, I will go on believeing that their is a bonus because no one has "proven" otherwise.

 

[Resolute]

And I really don't find it interesting that Bettman is willing to forgo the $25 million bonus because if he gets any cap at all, and if the radio station is right, than his bonus is instead $20 million.

Now my question to you is that if a cap is so important to the league, and if Bettman was, afterall hired to get a cap, don't you think he would have a bonus if he accomplished this goal? I know if I'm hired to do something that is deemed so important, I better get something extra for getting'er done. And if you do in fact believe that Gary does have a bonus on the line, then perhaps we should go back to question the creditibility of the NHL, who afterall had denied giving a bonus.

Harley Hotchkiss stated in the Calgary Herald (Feb 02 edition) shortly after Dowbiggin invented the bonus lie that he had personally negotiated Bettman's contract, and that there was no bonus of any kind for landing a salary cap.

"The report is inaccurate," Hotchkiss says. "I personally negotiated Gary's contract. I had the assistance of three other senior owners, and it was approved by the board. There are absolutely no CBA incentives in that contract.''

"Bettman came to us and said he would not accept any such incentives, because he wanted to be free to make his decisions without being accused of doing something for his own, in those negotiations, for his own personal gain.

"He's doing what we've asked him to do. He does have our support. I know him well and how much he cares about the game and the importance of the game in Canada.

Not $1 million, not $25 million. Though I like that last number. It has never been mentioned anywhere but this forum. Havent seen it in print, havent heard it in radio, havent seen it on any other forum.

I would suggest that either the radio station is pushing an agenda, and using one of Dowbiggin's lies to do so, or a poster here is pushing an agenda, and dragging a radio station's name through the mud to do so.