View Single Post
11-21-2012, 09:55 AM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
Bettman and Daly won't be gone after the lockout ends. they work for the owners, and they are just doing what the owners want them to do. regardless of fan perception of the two, the owners opinions are the only relevant ones.

ignorant comments from Versteeg and/or Simmons won't change that. that article was terrible, btw, and completely biased.

the last lockout, while painful, was a rousing success for the league. league revenues doubled. hopefully this one has a similar outcome. bettman is a patronizing, condescending *****, but he's a smart businessman and he knows what he's doing. he's not going to get fired.
We dont know exactly whats going on behind the scenes to say Bettman is doing what the owners want. I think Bettman has promised the owners a lot and thats why they have had a "take our offer or leave it" approach on several occasions. One of the owners (Ed Snider of the Flyers) is rumored to be souring on the process according to sources in Philly. Its not inconceivable to see the owners looking to replace Bettman after this lockout is over just like the players union replaced Goodenow (only 2 weeks after the last CBA was resolved).

I'm sorry but why was the article completely biased? How was it unfair at all? Simmons, while not a true hockey writer, is more of a casual American fan. So yes some of his info may be misinformed or lacking the full knowledge of more hardcore fans. But Simmons is considered a hugely popular writer and they did research once that out of 100,000 hits on ESPN one day that 60,000 of them were going to read Simmons' article. The fact that he wrote about how the lockout is still going on shows that even the average fan who isnt a diehard is getting sick of this process.

I'm sorry but outside of the revenue growth, how was the last lockout a success exactly? If it was such a success, we wouldnt be locked out again. I mean the league and owners kept saying during the last lockout, "we need a salary cap so we can get cost certainty and not lose so much money". Now they're saying "we need to pay the players less so we can get cost certainty and not lose so much money". Nothing really changed from the last lockout to this one so I see no reason why the the last CBA should be termed a "success" at all, unless you mean success in having the game back.

I refer to Simmons' quote which sums it up nicely:
The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.

CoolburnIsGone is offline   Reply With Quote