View Single Post
Old
12-26-2012, 06:56 PM
  #6
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
Add to that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman declaring that unless a 48-game season can be played, there will be no 2012-13 season, we are a little over two weeks from what appears to be yet another embarrassing catastrophe, courtesy of Bettman.
While I don't care for Bettman either, it's erroneous to state the season would be cancelled solely by him. He is advised by owners and other staffers as to if something is a good deal or not and goes based on that. So does the Fehr brothers, Daly, players, etc. If this season is cancelled, is cancelled courtesy a large group of people, not just Bettman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
However, even after acknowledging that the NHLPA bears some responsibility for the current stalemate, all the positives on Bettman’s record have been completely obliterated by three lockouts during his tenure.
If that were true, wouldn't the owners have decided he should go? Apparently, his downside isn't outweighed by what the owners hold dear and thus he's still around. And his job is solely to help the owners just like Fehr is solely for the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
Even worse, they are complicit in the fact that they failed to get the deal they needed during the last CBA negotiations in 2004-05, even though they held all the cards and secured what would be considered a blowout victory if we were talking about a hockey game. Indeed, the owners forced the players to capitulate, getting everything they wanted.
While I agree Bettman and Co. shouldn't be going through this again after 2004-2005, they never did get 'everything' they wanted. They gave on areas such as UFA age for example. They got a lot but not everything they wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
But more glaring is the fact that each of the three major professional sports leagues have some sort of significant revenue sharing in place, and have for a number of years. Meanwhile, the NHL, led by Bettman and the owners, is just barely starting to talk about that in a meaningful way as 2012 comes to a close.
What isn't noted here is that those three major sports leagues have massive TV revenues, unlike the NHL. Additionally, what would be a better test of revenue sharing is to look at it from a percentage basis. Who contributes more percentage wise of the funding they have, the NFL or NHL? It's all fine and good to say the NHL should share more of their revenue because other leagues do, but if those other leagues top teams are recording massive profits (after expenses) and NHL teams aren't, does it make sense to say that NHL teams should have to share at the same level as NFL teams?

kingsfan is online now   Reply With Quote