Was John Ziegler A Bad NHL President?

[sawchuk1971]

people thought bettman was bad....

i think john ziegler was just as bad as bettman....

he had a sinister relationship with of good ol' "dollar bill" wirtz....and alan eagleson..

i remember back in the '88 playoffs, he was a no show when the refs went on strike after
the incident where jim schoenfeld called out ref don koharski about loving donuts...



he also allowed the nhl to sign with sportchannel instead of espn....espn was in more
households than sportschannel...

but one good thing about his was belief that the nhl was a niche sports, popular in the northeast
and in canada.....however this belief was not popular among other owners, who wanted the nhl
to get larger tv footprint in the US...

this is why the owners overwhelming supported bettman because he would've delivered in getting
that mythical, but lucrative US TV contract....where ziegler had failed in that attempt....

Click to read more...

 

[McGarnagle]

He was pretty bad, didn't grow the game at all as you said despite presiding over the peak Gretzky era. He and the owners colluded to withhold player pensions. One could argue that the WHA merger was bungled (which killed Cincinnati and Houston as potential NHL markets because he couldn't stand up to Toronto and Montreal). Literally went on a fishing trip and unable to be contacted during the 1988 playoffs when the Koharski crisis broke out.

Honestly, say what you want about Bettman and the multiple lockouts, but he's a significantly better commissioner and businessman than Ziegler ever was.

 

[tony d]

Ziegler was the president of the NHL for the first few yrs. of my fandom. Can't say much about him but from what I can gather he was just there and nothing more.

 

[Big Phil]

He was there and let things just roll as he had a prime Gretzky and Lemieux to his advantage. There is no doubt hockey was a better and more fun game to watch under his tenure. Did that have anything to do with him? Not really, but the thing is we associate Bettman with things like the lockouts, the PC culture creeping into the game, the lack of intensity in the NHL compared to yesteryear, a more structured robotic game with more robotic players. So in reality, almost anyone looks good compared to Bettman because the game and the league doesn't have the back bone it used to have with things.

 

[streitz]

I don't care about anything except the league being entertaining, while he was in charge the league certainly was entertaining.

 

[The Panther]

The last of the old-skool presidents.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the last to preside over a thoroughly entertaining era.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Ziegler was the president of the NHL for the first few yrs. of my fandom. Can't say much about him but from what I can gather he was just there and nothing more.

The very definition of an "empty suit".

 

[Normand Lacombe]

Ziegler was a puppet for Wirtz and Eagleson. The only positive was making helmets mandatory, but I doubt that he really made the call on that on his own.

 

[streitz]

Ziegler was a puppet for Wirtz and Eagleson. The only positive was making helmets mandatory, but I doubt that he really made the call on that on his own.

Yeah but the NHL was entertaining back then at least.

 

[Normand Lacombe]

Yeah but the NHL was entertaining back then at least.

Yes it was in spite of Ziegler.

 

[crobro]

Plus he disappears for month during his tenure to rescue his kid from a Mooney type cult

 

[DowntownBooster]

He was pretty bad, didn't grow the game at all as you said despite presiding over the peak Gretzky era. He and the owners colluded to withhold player pensions. One could argue that the WHA merger was bungled (which killed Cincinnati and Houston as potential NHL markets because he couldn't stand up to Toronto and Montreal). Literally went on a fishing trip and unable to be contacted during the 1988 playoffs when the Koharski crisis broke out.

Honestly, say what you want about Bettman and the multiple lockouts, but he's a significantly better commissioner and businessman than Ziegler ever was.

I'm not sure that Ziegler can be faulted for the WHA merger failing to include Cincinnati and Houston. He was supportive of the 1977 proposal that would have brought in 6 teams from the WHA (including both Cincinnati and Houston). However, NHL bylaws at the time stipulated a three-quarters majority of teams had to approve it. Although the proposal was strongly supported (led by Philadelphia and the New York Rangers), it was unfortunately rejected by 5 teams (Boston, Los Angeles, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver).

While it's true that Bettman has done a better job than Ziegler, it must also be noted that Bettman's power as Commissioner is far greater than Ziegler's was as President. The NHL has become a much stronger league under Bettman but I would also say that at least Ziegler was willing to come to a merger agreement with the WHA (although it took an additional 2 years longer than it should have), whereas his predecessor Clarence Campbell refused to have any such discussions.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Plus he disappears for month during his tenure to rescue his kid from a Mooney type cult

Yeah, he was in England during the Schoenfeld-Koharski blow up.

 

[Hoser]

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say John Ziegler was 'bad'. 'Ineffectual', maybe. He was a Norris family lackey, in tight with longtime Norris associate Bill Wirtz too. He was named NHL President precisely because he was expected to not rock the boat and acquiesce to the owners' whims with little resistance, even if they needed a third party to tell them "No!"

Clarence Campbell was a strong personality who did things his way, and wouldn't take any guff from any of the owners. He manned the helm as the pro hockey landscape deteriorated in the 1970s, and looking back it's pretty clear that the NHL owners needed someone with a strong personality like that, but one who would put their own ego aside for the good of the league. Campbell wouldn't or couldn't do that, perhaps more concerned with his own legacy at that point. The NHL was run by a group of geriatrics who were too stuck in their ways and should have wised up a lot earlier. They ought to have had merger discussions with the WHA long before they did. They ought to have had better relations with players a lot earlier than they did.

Ziegler was a "yes" man. Hiring Gary Bettman was perhaps the smartest thing the owners have ever done.

 

[Jets4Life]

people thought bettman was bad....

i think john ziegler was just as bad as bettman....

For the life of me, I do not understand why people think Bettman is bad at his job. Bettman is very good at his job, which is more or less a figurehead of the NHL owners. Having said that, Ziegler was awful. Colluding with Alan Eagleson, to keep salaries down, and turn a blind eye to the corruption of the NHLPA. Signing that terrible Sportschannel America TV deal.

The event that cemented Ziegler's legacy as a incompetent NHL President happened in 1988, during the NHL playoffs. The whole Jim Schenfeld/Don Koharski affair is something that Ziegler will never live down. Because the whole incident created such a buzz around the sports world, Ziegler should have personally attended the game. Instead, for reasons unknown, (IIRC) went fishing, and was unavailable when the Devils were granted a court injunction, permitting Schenfeld to coach Game 4 vs the Bruins.

The referees refused to officiate the game, and league officials frantically tried contacting Ziegler for the next couple of days, without success. It was a huge embarrassment to the NHL. I do not think the owners ever forgave Ziegler, and the nail in the coffin was how he handled the 1992 NHL players strike. He was completely unprepared for it, and capitulated rather quickly, in order to proceed with the playoffs.

but one good thing about his was belief that the nhl was a niche sports, popular in the northeast

From a business standpoint, I have to disagree. When the NHL moved into large American cities in the south, it was finally able to secure a national TV deal that they had been pursuing for 20 years. It also drove the value of NHL franchises sky high.

 

[The Panther]

For the life of me, I do not understand why people think Bettman is bad at his job.

Bettman is good at his job if your definition of "good" is making a bunch of money, (over-)expanding the NHL, and lining the pockets of the owners. Those are exactly the things he was hired to do, and he has done them well. I reluctantly give him credit for the effective salary-cap and revenue sharing system. (Of course, any reasonable lawyer with sports-league experience could have done that, but nevertheless...).

But to respond to your point: The reason why people think Bettman is bad at his job is because the very things he is good at (which I listed, above) are all things that do not make the game better for the common fan. As far as the common fan goes, Bettman's tenure has watered-down the NHL with too many teams to keep track of or care about, obsessively sought non-traditional hockey markets at the expense of long-established ones, driven up revenues which hugely increased ticket prices (keeping working-class fans away from the rinks), and presided over three work-stoppages/lockouts, including an entire season lost, which is completely unprecedented in N.A. major-pro sports.

 

[zetajerk]

people thought bettman was bad....

i think john ziegler was just as bad as bettman....

he had a sinister relationship with of good ol' "dollar bill" wirtz....and alan eagleson..

i remember back in the '88 playoffs, he was a no show when the refs went on strike after
the incident where jim schoenfeld called out ref don koharski about loving donuts...



he also allowed the nhl to sign with sportchannel instead of espn....espn was in more
households than sportschannel...

but one good thing about his was belief that the nhl was a niche sports, popular in the northeast
and in canada.....however this belief was not popular among other owners, who wanted the nhl
to get larger tv footprint in the US...

this is why the owners overwhelming supported bettman because he would've delivered in getting
that mythical, but lucrative US TV contract....where ziegler had failed in that attempt....

How the hell is that a good thing? [Mod]

You do realize that San Jose, Tampa, Dallas, Florida, and Anaheim were all set in stone before Bettman came in right?

 

[zetajerk]

Bettman is good at his job if your definition of "good" is making a bunch of money, (over-)expanding the NHL, and lining the pockets of the owners. Those are exactly the things he was hired to do, and he has done them well. I reluctantly give him credit for the effective salary-cap and revenue sharing system. (Of course, any reasonable lawyer with sports-league experience could have done that, but nevertheless...).

But to respond to your point: The reason why people think Bettman is bad at his job is because the very things he is good at (which I listed, above) are all things that do not make the game better for the common fan. As far as the common fan goes, Bettman's tenure has watered-down the NHL with too many teams to keep track of or care about, obsessively sought non-traditional hockey markets at the expense of long-established ones, driven up revenues which hugely increased ticket prices (keeping working-class fans away from the rinks), and presided over three work-stoppages/lockouts, including an entire season lost, which is completely unprecedented in N.A. major-pro sports.

I'm pretty sure I'm a common fan and I wouldn't be so without the Hurricanes. [Mod]

The NHL would be so much better if it excluded 98% of the world's population from participating, for you maybe.

 

[Killion]

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say John Ziegler was 'bad'. 'Ineffectual', maybe. He was a Norris family lackey, in tight with longtime Norris associate Bill Wirtz too. He was named NHL President precisely because he was expected to not rock the boat and acquiesce to the owners' whims with little resistance, even if they needed a third party to tell them "No!"

Clarence Campbell was a strong personality who did things his way, and wouldn't take any guff from any of the owners. He manned the helm as the pro hockey landscape deteriorated in the 1970s, and looking back it's pretty clear that the NHL owners needed someone with a strong personality like that, but one who would put their own ego aside for the good of the league. Campbell wouldn't or couldn't do that, perhaps more concerned with his own legacy at that point. The NHL was run by a group of geriatrics who were too stuck in their ways and should have wised up a lot earlier. They ought to have had merger discussions with the WHA long before they did. They ought to have had better relations with players a lot earlier than they did.

Ziegler was a "yes" man. Hiring Gary Bettman was perhaps the smartest thing the owners have ever done.

Pretty much this, yes. Bettman inheriting one Hell of an Unholy Mess.

 

[AmericanDream]

I'm not sure that Ziegler can be faulted for the WHA merger failing to include Cincinnati and Houston. He was supportive of the 1977 proposal that would have brought in 6 teams from the WHA (including both Cincinnati and Houston). However, NHL bylaws at the time stipulated a three-quarters majority of teams had to approve it. Although the proposal was strongly supported (led by Philadelphia and the New York Rangers), it was unfortunately rejected by 5 teams (Boston, Los Angeles, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver).

While it's true that Bettman has done a better job than Ziegler, it must also be noted that Bettman's power as Commissioner is far greater than Ziegler's was as President. The NHL has become a much stronger league under Bettman but I would also say that at least Ziegler was willing to come to a merger agreement with the WHA (although it took an additional 2 years longer than it should have), whereas his predecessor Clarence Campbell refused to have any such discussions.

I would be interested to know more about why LA and Boston would have issues with Houston and Cincinnati in the league? Doesn't make much sense to me on a logistics basis, so has to be something else there I am unaware of.

And though who knows if the teams would have folded at some point, but that Houston market is the #1 market the NHL wishes they had today...damn shame it never got done.

 

[Killion]

I would be interested to know more about why LA and Boston would have issues with Houston and Cincinnati in the league? Doesn't make much sense to me on a logistics basis, so has to be something else there I am unaware of.

And though who knows if the teams would have folded at some point, but that Houston market is the #1 market the NHL wishes they had today...damn shame it never got done.

Bottom line was that the NHL was insistent that only 4 WHA Teams be admitted, the WHA insistent that 3 of those be Canadian, Edmonton, Winnipeg & Quebec. Whittled things down to either Houston or New England filling that 4th spot, and with the Seals, Atlanta & LA all experiencing financial difficulties Ziegler & the NHL BOG's gun shy over Houstons entry given its locale in the Sunbelt despite it being one of the most successful WHA franchises, solid ownership, well run.

Quite a commotion, big stink made about it actually. Ownership offering to pay whatever the Hell they wanted in Expansion Fee's, separate from the Amalgamation & so on. Long story on that one. The NHL seriously ticking him off. . Cincy hadnt been doing well at the gate, weak ownership, they along with Birmingham actually paid much needed $$$ to be excluded, go away.... And sure enough, the NHL very much interested in Houston over the past 30+ yrs. Les Alexander however, Zero Interest given what went down in the 70's & so on.

Meanwhile in Boston, Jeremy Jacobs against Amalgamation altogether. Wanted them gone. Dead. So he had to be given an incentive, bought off. And that he was. Concessions, broadcast etc, other conditions included dropping the "New England" name, changing it to Hartford & so on. Also semi "infringing" on the Rangers & Islanders "territories" but as a then wealthy albeit small market, Whalers in. What then transpired with the Civic Center, Peter Karmano's & so on over the decades that followed all rather sad as it was with Quebec, Winnipeg & very nearly Edmonton.... Some of these guys, long memories, knives sharpened long into the night for years afterwards...

 

[AmericanDream]

Bottom line was that the NHL was insistent that only 4 WHA Teams be admitted, the WHA insistent that 3 of those be Canadian, Edmonton, Winnipeg & Quebec. Whittled things down to either Houston or New England filling that 4th spot, and with the Seals, Atlanta & LA all experiencing financial difficulties Ziegler & the NHL BOG's gun shy over Houstons entry given its locale in the Sunbelt despite it being one of the most successful WHA franchises, solid ownership, well run.

Quite a commotion, big stink made about it actually. Ownership offering to pay whatever the Hell they wanted in Expansion Fee's, separate from the Amalgamation & so on. Long story on that one. The NHL seriously ticking him off. . Cincy hadnt been doing well at the gate, weak ownership, they along with Birmingham actually paid much needed $$$ to be excluded, go away.... And sure enough, the NHL very much interested in Houston over the past 30+ yrs. Les Alexander however, Zero Interest given what went down in the 70's & so on.

Meanwhile in Boston, Jeremy Jacobs against Amalgamation altogether. Wanted them gone. Dead. So he had to be given an incentive, bought off. And that he was. Concessions, broadcast etc, other conditions included dropping the "New England" name, changing it to Hartford & so on. Also semi "infringing" on the Rangers & Islanders "territories" but as a then wealthy albeit small market, Whalers in. What then transpired with the Civic Center, Peter Karmano's & so on over the decades that followed all rather sad as it was with Quebec, Winnipeg & very nearly Edmonton.... Some of these guys, long memories, knives sharpened long into the night for years afterwards...

I do appreciate all this info..that is where I was getting at and why I was confused with Boston saying NO to Houston/Cincy but allowing "New England" errr...I mean Hartford into the league...I never knew Jacobs made $$$$ off of allowing the Whalers in, and if that is the case then I can see why he allowed such a close proximity team to join the league.

It is a shame more teams didn't get absorbed, Cincinnati I understand, but as you stated, Houston from everything I always read was a strong and successful team/franchise...that one still makes me scratch my head and likely one of the NHL's biggest regrets to this day.

 

[Killion]

I do appreciate all this info..that is where I was getting at and why I was confused with Boston saying NO to Houston/Cincy but allowing "New England" errr...I mean Hartford into the league...I never knew Jacobs made $$$$ off of allowing the Whalers in, and if that is the case then I can see why he allowed such a close proximity team to join the league.

It is a shame more teams didn't get absorbed, Cincinnati I understand, but as you stated, Houston from everything I always read was a strong and successful team/franchise...that one still makes me scratch my head and likely one of the NHL's biggest regrets to this day.

Yeah. The other thing to be cognizant of is the structure, framework. It wasnt legally constructed as an "Amalgamation" but rather as an "Expansion". The 4 WHA Teams charged a $6M "Expansion Fee". Cincy & Birmingham paid $1.5M ea to ride off into the sunset. All of their Player Contracts reverting back to the original NHL holders, allowed to protect only 2 skaters & 2 goalies, no share in Broadcast or Central Revenues for several years & so on & so on.

Not exactly welcomed with open arms, punitive agreement that set them back on their heels somewhat. Despite that of course, Edmonton, with Gretzky under a "Personal Services Contract" between he & Pocklington & thus voided, not part of the equation... built a winner pretty damn quick, mini-Dynasty there, rocking the NHL's World. Diques & the fabulous "Battle of Quebec" games & series; Winnipeg respectable... Hartford with Gordie Howe, Dave Keon et al also welcomed back warmly if not by the League certainly by the fans.

 

[Jets4Life]

Bottom line was that the NHL was insistent that only 4 WHA Teams be admitted, the WHA insistent that 3 of those be Canadian, Edmonton, Winnipeg & Quebec. Whittled things down to either Houston or New England filling that 4th spot, and with the Seals, Atlanta & LA all experiencing financial difficulties Ziegler & the NHL BOG's gun shy over Houstons entry given its locale in the Sunbelt despite it being one of the most successful WHA franchises, solid ownership, well run.

Quite a commotion, big stink made about it actually. Ownership offering to pay whatever the Hell they wanted in Expansion Fee's, separate from the Amalgamation & so on. Long story on that one. The NHL seriously ticking him off. . Cincy hadnt been doing well at the gate, weak ownership, they along with Birmingham actually paid much needed $$$ to be excluded, go away.... And sure enough, the NHL very much interested in Houston over the past 30+ yrs. Les Alexander however, Zero Interest given what went down in the 70's & so on.

Not admitting Houston was a huge mistake, that looks more ridiculous 40 years after the team voted to suspend operations, as a result of not entering the NHL. The largest market without an NHL team in North America. An NHL_ready arena, that is only 15 years old, a natural rivalry with the Stars, and most importantly, an NHL team in Houston would balance out the Divisions.

The NHL should have granted an NHL team to Houston after their failed bid for the Oilers in the late 90s. Instead Atlanta was granted a second team, and we all know how that went down. Raleigh, NC was also a poor choice for an NHL team. In fact, of the six cities either awarded an NHL team by expansion or relocation between 1996-2000, only Minnesota would have done better than a team in Houston.

Phoenix (1996): a complete disaster. The owners never even bothered to properly survey the America West Arena, as there were hundreds of obstructed seats for hockey. When the team moved to the suburbs, people in the region stopped caring about the team. The Coyotes have been on life support for nearly a decade.

Carolina (1997): They would have been better off staying in Hartford, and building a new arena. The first two years, in particular, make the team the laughing stock of the sports world, when they were forced to play in front of 80% empty seats in Greensboro. Like Nashville, the Canes could attract interest with a competitive club, but more often than not, they are terrible.

Nashville (1998): successful today, but it took years before the team really caught on with the locals, and they nearly relocated to Hamilton.

Atlanta (1999): A decade of poor ownership caused locals to stop attending games, and at the end, could only manage to fill 1/2 the arena. Never won a playoff games, and lost their second NHL team to Winnipeg.

Minnesota (2000): A model team. Well run organization, competitive, and located in a traditional hockey market. Big win by the NHL for allowing Minnesota to return to the league.

Columbus (2000): Not sure what the issue is with Columbus, but it was obvious from day one that the local would have supported the team as it matured. However, after nearly 20 seasons, the Blue Jackets have never won a playoff round, and rarely sellout any games.

Please, Mr. Fertitta. Bring a team to Houston now!

 

[double5son10]

I would be interested to know more about why LA and Boston would have issues with Houston and Cincinnati in the league? Doesn't make much sense to me on a logistics basis, so has to be something else there I am unaware of.

And though who knows if the teams would have folded at some point, but that Houston market is the #1 market the NHL wishes they had today...damn shame it never got done.

If I remember correctly with regards to LA, owner Jack Kent Cooke felt that his gate receipts were driven by east coast transplants and not by native Angelenos. Having dates against Houston & Cincinnati meant fewer dates against Boston, NY, Philadelphia, thus fewer fans through the turnstile. Pretzel logic, but that was Jack Kent Cooke for ya. Strange that a guy from Hamilton did so little to build a winner or grow the game in SoCal, but I guess he was too busy with the Lakers and Redskins to bother.