HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Has Ed Snider had enough?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2012, 12:59 AM
  #76
M A K A V E L I*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: van Coevorden
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Group of Eight: Boston, Minnesota, Calgary, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia and Anaheim, in addition to Phoenix. Philadelphia may be drifting towards the middle ground from the tone of the article.
Easy solution for the rest of the 22 owners: Kick these 8 out of the league, get rid of Bettman, get a deal done without these morons holding up negotiations, give these 8 one week after a new deal is signed to join in. Otherwise, they can sit and watch hockey at home.

M A K A V E L I* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:20 AM
  #77
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,704
vCash: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
Easy solution for the rest of the 22 owners: Kick these 8 out of the league, get rid of Bettman, get a deal done without these morons holding up negotiations, give these 8 one week after a new deal is signed to join in. Otherwise, they can sit and watch hockey at home.
I'm sorry,why do people keep acting like the lockout is driven by only 8 teams? I'm thinking if it's really only 8 in agreement+ Bettman to play hardball, why on earth are the other 22 teams going along? We're not talking a communist regime. More teams must be agreeing with keeping the lockout going or I'm quite sure it would be over.

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 07:02 AM
  #78
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
How anyone can suggest that baffles me. (I know you didn't, just piggybacking your post.)

There is ever increasing evidence that the owners are indeed fracturing, and now we have clearest perspective that the players have *already* gotten more than they were "supposed" to.

Fehr is anything but an idiot - he's accomplishing what was supposed to be impossible - he's winning.
Yep he's winning alright, his players have already lost more in revenue than if they would have just agreed to the 1st 50/50 deal. If that's winning I'd hate to see what you consider losing!

19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:39 AM
  #79
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
Yep he's winning alright, his players have already lost more in revenue than if they would have just agreed to the 1st 50/50 deal.
There is a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim correct. There is also a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim hopelessly false.

Where reality actually lands, remains to be seen.

  Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:43 AM
  #80
Wiems35*
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
There is a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim correct. There is also a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim hopelessly false.

Where reality actually lands, remains to be seen.
In the post he quoted, you had already decided that Fehr was winning. No one is winning.

Wiems35* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:43 AM
  #81
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by topdog View Post
This report was all speculation...
That is speculation on your part.

  Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:43 AM
  #82
1865
Registered User
 
1865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester, UK
Country: England
Posts: 9,175
vCash: 50
How long until the players will earn less on the new proposals than they would have on the first?

1865 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:44 AM
  #83
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiems35 View Post
No one is winning.
Depends on the benchmark.

  Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:45 AM
  #84
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
I really hope that Seravalli just got his facts wrong on this one - allowing Phoenix to have a vote is an enormous conflict of interest, and if it's true that they have a vote, I'm surprised that Fehr & Co. haven't brought it up (though I wonder if he's waiting to play that card until they reach the stage that something has to voted on).
Don't worry too much about it. If a majority of the BoG really want to end this lockout they only need 51% to fire Bettman. The 75% provision is only to pass a deal while Gary is sitting in the room.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:50 AM
  #85
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
There is a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim correct. There is also a set of assumptions about the future that makes the above claim hopelessly false.

Where reality actually lands, remains to be seen.
If the players get delinkage and/or keep all of their contractual rights, then it's easily a win. If the players accept linkage and give up even some of their contractual rights, there's absolutely no way to say that is a true 'win' unless we know what the owners were willing to give up from the start. If everything that the owners have backed off on or agreed to were all conditions they anticipated using a bargaining tool to get what they truly want, I don't see how that would be a win for the PA. In fact, it could be argued to be a huge loss for the PA because everything they gained or kept from these negotiations could have very possibly been had had they worked more quickly in countering with proposals that the owners were requesting from them.

But you are correct, nothing can be truly determined until these negotiations are over and we see where all the chips have fallen.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:52 AM
  #86
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
That is speculation on your part.
Not really. The article was refuted by the very man who the article was about. It's pretty fair to call the article speculation given the context. Snider could very well be lying BUT the fact that he has come out and refuted it means that the article can't be treated as anything more than speculation. How do you figure that an article using unidentified sources can be more than speculation when the individual that the article was focused on comes out an says that it's not true?

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:58 AM
  #87
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Don't worry too much about it. If a majority of the BoG really want to end this lockout they only need 51% to fire Bettman. The 75% provision is only to pass a deal while Gary is sitting in the room.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm wondering where you got this information from. Everything I've read, granted it's not properly sourced, indicates that his 5 year extension in 2010 also required a super-majority (75%) to fire him.

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 12:28 PM
  #88
mytor4*
 
mytor4*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,175
vCash: 500
Well i stand behind the response Ed Snider has given over a reporter's claim with no evidence what so ever comming from unidentified sources


Last edited by mytor4*: 11-18-2012 at 12:36 PM.
mytor4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 12:55 PM
  #89
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Well then yes, I guess so. No need to carry on. I said what I wanted to say the first time around when I responded to your post.

Edit: In an effort to address your question, I will support your position as everything I have come across also says that there needs to be a 75% vote to get rid of him.
Sorry if I came off as snappy; not enough sleep last night and kids up too early.

I find that the NHL does a pretty good job of keeping primary documents out of the hands of the masses. As somebody who makes a living that requires sources, sources and sources, it's very frustrating at times. As is the kind of back-room chicanery that may or may not be happening as referred to in the article.

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:08 PM
  #90
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by topdog View Post
Well i stand behind the response Ed Snider has given over a reporter's claim with no evidence what so ever comming from unidentified sources
... and your perfectly entitled to believe whatever you wanna believe. Obviously a great many others here disagree, myself included. Where theres smoke theres fire. Having watched Fast Eddies act for over 40yrs, seen this sort of performance from him on numerous occasions, then Im sure you wont mind if I dismiss your opinion as being naive.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:11 PM
  #91
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Don't worry too much about it. If a majority of the BoG really want to end this lockout they only need 51% to fire Bettman. The 75% provision is only to pass a deal while Gary is sitting in the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tko78 View Post
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm wondering where you got this information from. Everything I've read, granted it's not properly sourced, indicates that his 5 year extension in 2010 also required a super-majority (75%) to fire him.
Per Article VII of the NHL Constitution, an officer (including the Commissioner) may be removed with a two-thirds majority vote of all Member Clubs present and voting on the matter.

Bettman has in his contract a clause that requires 50% + 1 to pass a CBA that he approves, and requires a 75% super majority to pass a CBA he does not approve. In other words, Bettman, with the support of 8 owners, can block any CBA from ratification.


Last edited by Crease: 11-18-2012 at 01:22 PM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:22 PM
  #92
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,253
vCash: 156
This is a signature move of the Flyers organization. Unnamed source in the org speaks to the press, word gets out, organization makes their point, then denies it.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:26 PM
  #93
tko78
Registered User
 
tko78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Per Article VII of the NHL Constitution, an officer (including the Commissioner) may be removed with a two-thirds majority vote of all Member Clubs present and voting on the matter.

Bettman has in his contract a clause that requires 50% + 1 to pass a CBA that he approves, and requires a 75% super majority to pass a CBA he does not approve. In other words, Bettman, with the support of 8 owners, can block any CBA from ratification.
Thank-you sir. That's the kind of information I was looking for.

tko78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:28 PM
  #94
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
This is a signature move of the Flyers organization. Unnamed source in the org speaks to the press, word gets out, organization makes their point, then denies it.
... damn straight it is. Philly Invictus.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:13 PM
  #95
HookKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 777
vCash: 500
...Put simply: Snider and the rest of the NHL's owners were promised a big win by Bettman, with player concessions on revenue division and contracting rights...

The idea that Bettman would "promise" this much less be actually believed by the owners is simply laughable. The only question is who planted the story.

HookKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:46 PM
  #96
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Per Article VII of the NHL Constitution, an officer (including the Commissioner) may be removed with a two-thirds majority vote of all Member Clubs present and voting on the matter.

Bettman has in his contract a clause that requires 50% + 1 to pass a CBA that he approves, and requires a 75% super majority to pass a CBA he does not approve. In other words, Bettman, with the support of 8 owners, can block any CBA from ratification.
Contract law is a bit murky a direct majority of the BoG could likely vote to break that clause and pay whatever severance package Gary want to go quietly. As I see it if they really want to fire him they will fire him. Gary will likely sue because he a lawyer and that what they do and the NHL will settle.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:46 PM
  #97
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HookKing View Post
...Put simply: Snider and the rest of the NHL's owners were promised a big win by Bettman, with player concessions on revenue division and contracting rights...

The idea that Bettman would "promise" this much less be actually believed by the owners is simply laughable. The only question is who planted the story.

Bettman also reportedly promised the BOG they wouldn't lose a penny on the Phoenix bankruptcy buyout and potential relocation. Still waiting to see how that plays out.



To the point here, the NHL clearly has to have crunched some numbers on what they expect to gain and lose with any lockout, especially a protracted one. What would be laughable is to suggest they would embark on this course if they weren't expecting significant gains.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:01 PM
  #98
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
This is a signature move of the Flyers organization. Unnamed source in the org speaks to the press, word gets out, organization makes their point, then denies it.

Also from a Philadelphia news outlet, Tim Panaccio (Comcast Sportsnet):
Mark this down: When hockey returns, it will do so with less longtime, loyal sponsors who have stood by and watched two lockouts in seven years and understand there is something fundamentally wrong with this business model.

What kind of sports league forces a shutdown to achieve “economic certainty,” with a CBA, and then after record revenues seven years later feels it needs massive changes to assure better economic certainty and sets out to destroy everything it had achieved?

Amid this chaos, The Commish, Gary Bettman, if he hasn’t figured this out by now, has more than met his match in Donald Fehr, the man who brought Major League Baseball to its knees, then rebuilt the game with an economic structure that has had guaranteed labor peace for 15 years.

If Bettman thinks he’s going to get Fehr to blink, he hasn’t done his homework on a man who stared down the World Series and won.

The danger now is that in their desire to annihilate the NHLPA under marching orders from Jeremy Jacobs, Bettman has strengthened the players’ resolve to see this through even if means losing another season.

If I'm ~allowed~ to speculate, I think that some owners may no longer be in Jacobs' camp, something to which the article that started this thread only makes the following reference, with regard to Snider:
To be sure, Snider and Co. were not against the lockout. Some in the media pegged the Flyers during this process as "middlers," or those that wanted to play but were interested in results. That all has changed. On Friday, multiple sources indicated Snider's "strong discontent" for Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, a big-market owner who has been one of the lockout's ringleaders.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:04 PM
  #99
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,386
vCash: 500
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...E93owdlNyiostL

Brooks also reported today:

If the season is canceled, the Maple Leafs will lose approximately $100 million, the Rangers at least $50 million and the Canadiens somewhat less than that.
Yet not one of these ownership groups is represented on the NHL negotiating committee. And while Toronto GM Brian Burke is on the committee, we’re told the league’s agenda is being plotted all but exclusively by Canceler-in-Chief Gary Bettman and Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs, the hawkish chairman of the Board of Governors.

Indeed, according to one trustworthy individual who attended the negotiating session in New York on Nov. 9, Calgary owner Murray Edwards was at one point silenced by Bettman just a moment after Jacobs leaned over and whispered into the commissioner’s ear.
I guess there's some smoke. We'll see if there's a fire.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:15 PM
  #100
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,253
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...E93owdlNyiostL

Brooks also reported today:
If the season is canceled, the Maple Leafs will lose approximately $100 million, the Rangers at least $50 million and the Canadiens somewhat less than that.
Yet not one of these ownership groups is represented on the NHL negotiating committee. And while Toronto GM Brian Burke is on the committee, we’re told the league’s agenda is being plotted all but exclusively by Canceler-in-Chief Gary Bettman and Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs, the hawkish chairman of the Board of Governors.

Indeed, according to one trustworthy individual who attended the negotiating session in New York on Nov. 9, Calgary owner Murray Edwards was at one point silenced by Bettman just a moment after Jacobs leaned over and whispered into the commissioner’s ear.
I guess there's some smoke. We'll see if there's a fire.
That link seems to be broken; I'm interested to see when Brooks posted his article.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-18-2012 at 03:34 PM. Reason: fixed the link
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.