View Single Post
12-07-2012, 07:03 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 691
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
Actually, you may. After 2004, it might have been best if Bettman had stepped down and just clear the air. The 2004 lockout was bitter but this one is even worse and that is probably in direct relation to the 2004 lockout. Removing Bettman is a positive step in the eyes of the PA, a good will gesture that it's time to get fresher blood, a different view point and maybe someone the PA would work with.
Why would the NHL get rid of someone that has been following there orders... you think if they fired him last year and hired some random guy, that random guy wouldn't call for a vote to lockout the players? You think if Bill Daly stepped up and took over he wouldn't be doing what the owners wanted (lockout if there's no CBA)?

Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
Uh, I thought Bettman represented the owners? And helped shape the agreement between the owners and the players?
You just gave a reason... there are two sides, one represented by Bettman, other by Fehr. I don't understand the logic behind "two sides can't make a deal, so I'm going to solely blame this one person/side".

amit916 is offline   Reply With Quote