My understanding of the current lockout is that the salary cap has increased to a level that makes owning a team unaffordable with the consequences that nearly half of the ownership are either not making money or making very little money.
The last lockout was creating parity in the league in establishing a salary cap and a control on spending.
Of the last two lockouts, both seems to be a decision made by the owners jointly, not Gary Bettman singularly.
Would a "Hockey Man" have chosen differently? Could another NHL commissioner avoided the lockouts? Imo, the lockouts is a symptom of a poor economic framework in the league, not a personal choice of the commissioner.
Wrong guy in the wrong place. Stick Clarence Campbell in that same spot, in todays game and business environment, and you likely get the same result. He's a spokesman for the owners and does their bidding. He gets paid the big bucks to take all the bullets and crap from the players. He can't stop the owners from giving out ridiculous contracts or having their own lawyers continuously find loopholes in agreements they orchestrated. As a lawyer, he may offer advice, but he is paid by the owners and ultimately follows their wishes. You're giving him far too much "credit".
Last edited by Stoneman89: 11-24-2012 at 01:32 PM.
ok , I am the liquor ... you and I never see eye to eye but pls tell em you dont believe this ?
I dont know about the the first lockout but the 2004 was a new system that was needed to ensure the health and saftey of small teams like th oilers ... without a salary cap we just could not compete now this time around cause he wanted to talk a year and some before the cba expired and the stupid other guy, lets call him MR DUCK didnt cause he felt he had more leverage if he waited somehow makes this Gary's fault ? Pls even you arnt that ...... lets leave it at that
My understanding of the current lockout is that the salary cap has increased to a level that makes owning a team unaffordable with the consequences that nearly half of the ownership are either not making money or making very little money.
The last lockout was creating parity in the league in establishing a salary cap and a control on spending.
Of the last two lockouts, both seems to be a decision made by the owners jointly, not Gary Bettman singularly.
Would a "Hockey Man" have chosen differently? Could another NHL commissioner avoided the lockouts? Imo, the lockouts is a symptom of a poor economic framework in the league, not a personal choice of the commissioner.
Who is responsible for the poor economic framework? Is this not the system he fought for and blew a whole season to get?
I wonder how the economic bust has effected the NHL. Not a lot of people seem to take that into account. If it hasn't effected the NHL yet, I'm sure the NHL is anticipating that it will soon, and that's why they're so set on getting a new deal done.
Is the NHL the only league that is not perfect when it comes to the CBA? Did the other leagues never have a lockout in the last 20 years?
The last CBA can work with tweaks as Garry B has said. It needs more revenue sharing, shift in %, etc. It's too bad Fehr didn't want to negotiate within the same framework to start off. Could have saved everybody a lot of time.
It's so laughable when the players say Bettman is so bad for the game after their salaries have skyrocketed. They then say he put teams in bad markets which created more jobs for the players as well. They then say the owners should just say no and nobody puts a gun to their heads.
Well, guess what? They are saying no right now. They are following the players advice and the players are crying like little spoiled children because of it.
Is the NHL the only league that is not perfect when it comes to the CBA? Did the other leagues never have a lockout in the last 20 years?
The last CBA can work with tweaks as Garry B has said. It needs more revenue sharing, shift in %, etc. It's too bad Fehr didn't want to negotiate within the same framework to start off. Could have saved everybody a lot of time.
It's so laughable when the players say Bettman is so bad for the game after their salaries have skyrocketed. They then say he put teams in bad markets which created more jobs for the players as well. They then say the owners should just say no and nobody puts a gun to their heads.
Well, guess what? They are saying no right now. They are following the players advice and the players are crying like little spoiled children because of it.
How many leagues have lost two full seasons in the last eight years?
How many leagues have lost two full seasons in the last eight years?
Or ever for that matter?
The league has had two lockouts the last 8 years, but what the players say is so hypocritical. I think it's stupid if they lose this season, but when teams are not healthy, something needs to be done. It's both sides fault.
The owners who handed out massive contracts just before the CBA expired are just ridiculous. That must have really pi**ed off GB and I am sure he told them they shouldn't do that. Those owners basically lowered Garys leverage by doing that.
The players also knew the lockout was coming. They shouldn't insult all of us though and act so surprised or stupid (although a lot of them probably believe what they write and speak of). Why would a bunch of players make sure they got signing bonuses.
I just think Gary gets way too much flack. He has done good and bad, but IMO he has done more good for the game and a lot of people skip past that. It's too bad Donald delayed this process overall. I hope he doesn't play around too much and underestimate Gary and the owners.
They should both actually just step aside and let the others get the deal done. The NBA had the commish's sidekick finish off the deal basically.
The players also really showed how much they hate these situations by offering up a 5 year CBA...lol
Bettman & owners tried to set salary cap already at last lockout on 50-50 basis. Probably it would have been taken another year without NHL. Owners just decided to implement salary cap then and they had already plan to implement 50-50 system after CBA has expired. Player knew it and they are just negotiating about length of transit time and negotiating rights.
50-50 is industry standard simple as that and when players are realizing that Bettman will let them play hockey again.
Bettman executes the will of the owners, if they didn't like what he was doing they would find someone else. The last CBA might have favored the players in the long run, but the changes made to the game increased revenues. If the game was shrinking Bettman would be doing a bad job, but the game continues to grow under his direction. Thus I think it's fair to say that from the owners perspective he really hasn't done that bad of a job.
Exactly. Some posts have said he is lawyer. Yes, I am considering law degree as a good basic education for the business career. First of all he is not a lawyer. He has not done that for years.
I need to back up. He is a hockey man too. He has been long enough to be considered as hockey man.
Who is responsible for the poor economic framework? Is this not the system he fought for and blew a whole season to get?
Yes the current CBA is the current economic framework that he fought for. Was it his by design? I'm not sure, I believe that Daly has probably a large input into the current CBA as well as the owners.
Is the current CBA perfect? Obviously not. It was designed to keep costs down and teams profitable. I believe on the whole, its not a bad CBA but loopholes need to be closed, and some items need to be tweaked.
i) 50/50 revenue split. or hard cap that doesn't climb or absent the cap floor.
ii) degree of revenue sharing so that three teams aren't impacting the revenues as much as they are
iii) take out loopholes of 10 year contracts where the last several years are just cap loopholes
etc.
Everything always needs to be tweaked - the devils in the details and there are too many rules lawyers, agents and gms looking to bypass the rules in order to gain a slight advantage.
Yes the current CBA is the current economic framework that he fought for. Was it his by design? I'm not sure, I believe that Daly has probably a large input into the current CBA as well as the owners.
Is the current CBA perfect? Obviously not. It was designed to keep costs down and teams profitable. I believe on the whole, its not a bad CBA but loopholes need to be closed, and some items need to be tweaked.
i) 50/50 revenue split. or hard cap that doesn't climb or absent the cap floor.
ii) degree of revenue sharing so that three teams aren't impacting the revenues as much as they are
iii) take out loopholes of 10 year contracts where the last several years are just cap loopholes
etc.
Everything always needs to be tweaked - the devils in the details and there are too many rules lawyers, agents and gms looking to bypass the rules in order to gain a slight advantage.
So we want to keep parity in the league, but allow teams to spend 20mil a year on a team?
Yes the current CBA is the current economic framework that he fought for. Was it his by design? I'm not sure, I believe that Daly has probably a large input into the current CBA as well as the owners.
Is the current CBA perfect? Obviously not. It was designed to keep costs down and teams profitable. I believe on the whole, its not a bad CBA but loopholes need to be closed, and some items need to be tweaked.
i) 50/50 revenue split. or hard cap that doesn't climb or absent the cap floor.
ii) degree of revenue sharing so that three teams aren't impacting the revenues as much as they are
iii) take out loopholes of 10 year contracts where the last several years are just cap loopholes
etc.
Everything always needs to be tweaked - the devils in the details and there are too many rules lawyers, agents and gms looking to bypass the rules in order to gain a slight advantage.
They already have a clause in their latest offer to the players where teams can trade cap space. That circumvents the cap. Were they not able to foresee that 43% of HRR would not be enough? How does that even happen?
Exactly. Some posts have said he is lawyer. Yes, I am considering law degree as a good basic education for the business career. First of all he is not a lawyer. He has not done that for years.
I need to back up. He is a hockey man too. He has been long enough to be considered as hockey man.
Sheer nonsense.
Does anyone have any evidence of Bettman owning a business? Does anyone have any evidence of Bettman following hockey before he became commissioner?
Sheer nonsense.
Does anyone have any evidence of Bettman owning a business? Does anyone have any evidence of Bettman following hockey before he became commissioner?
You say that as a positive, do you have evidence to the contraire?
