HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Duhatschek: Gary Bettman: King of the Castle

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2013, 10:19 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,348
vCash: 500
Duhatschek: Gary Bettman: King of the Castle

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle15475311/

On the topic that the league would increase revenues by $1 billion in the near term:
Quote:

Bettman:
Sports, as a media property, is increasingly valuable because it’s something you have to have live. As a result, we’re a better touch point for sponsors and advertisers because our commercials typically don’t get zapped out. International is importan to us. Events are important.
On expansion, why not chase the money over the footprint, why leave money on the table:

Quote:
Bettman: Because that, my friend, is a snap shot as opposed to the long-form movie. Whatever you do needs to be sustainable over time and taking the money in the short term and taking it in a bubble – like buying an Internet stock in 2000 – may not be sustainable.
Personally I think some of the easy money now options would indeed be sustainable. Gary goes on to say there's no master plan and a second Toronto team would be a board decision.


Article goes on to discuss player safety, fighting and the status of the Canadian TV negotiations (nothing to say).

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2013, 11:26 PM
  #2
viper0220
Go Jets Go
 
viper0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle15475311/

On the topic that the league would increase revenues by $1 billion in the near term:


On expansion, why not chase the money over the footprint, why leave money on the table:



Personally I think some of the easy money now options would indeed be sustainable. Gary goes on to say there's no master plan and a second Toronto team would be a board decision.


Article goes on to discuss player safety, fighting and the status of the Canadian TV negotiations (nothing to say).


After reading that article, I can see why Gary is smart his words are so chosen. Eric D. asks a lot of questions(good questions) and none of them are given a straight answer(now that's lawyer talk).

viper0220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2013, 11:35 PM
  #3
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by viper0220 View Post
After reading that article, I can see why Gary is smart his words are so chosen. Eric D. asks a lot of questions(good questions) and none of them are given a straight answer(now that's lawyer talk).

Kind of funny, isn't it? The Hat asked every question we'd want to ask ourselves, and I'm not sure we're all that much more enlightened after reading the article.

The one sliver I gleaned that's rather confirmatory was the value of sports programming as a live program.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2013, 11:53 PM
  #4
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,799
vCash: 500
... Boy is that funny. Just typical Bettmanesque. "youve been pitching it for 30 years and it hasnt come to fruition". In other words Eric, your obviously a loser. Thirty years youve been pitching this and it still aint sticking to the wall huh?... or that wonderful "well my friend, thats the snapshot version, not the whole movie"... again, in other words, your just not clued in to the big picture here Pal... I hope he never retires. Seems all re-born as a nurdy little nano bot these days. God Bless you Gary Bettman.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 09:15 AM
  #5
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... Boy is that funny. Just typical Bettmanesque. "youve been pitching it for 30 years and it hasnt come to fruition". In other words Eric, your obviously a loser. Thirty years youve been pitching this and it still aint sticking to the wall huh?... or that wonderful "well my friend, thats the snapshot version, not the whole movie"... again, in other words, your just not clued in to the big picture here Pal... I hope he never retires. Seems all re-born as a nurdy little nano bot these days. God Bless you Gary Bettman.
Oh good, it only took three posts for someone to completely misquote Bettman, then outdo himself by twisting the quote completely out of context and otherwise miss the point of what he was saying, proving Bettman's own point about how he gets misquoted and twisted out of context.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 09:37 AM
  #6
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Bettman: The money is secondary. In my pyramid of how this works, the game on the ice is the most important thing. Then, you service your fans. If you’re doing that right, then the money flows.
Yup, definitely. That's why we had a lockout last year.

To service the fans, to serve the game on the ice. The money is only "secondary."

Quote:
Duhatschek: ... We write about putting a second team in Toronto all the time and that’s been a personal hobby horse of mine for going on 30 years. You’re running a business. To me, it just looks as if you’re leaving money on the table by not pursuing that.

Bettman: Because that, my friend, is a snap shot as opposed to the long-form movie. Whatever you do needs to be sustainable over time and taking the money in the short term and taking it in a bubble – like buying an Internet stock in 2000 – may not be sustainable. What you want to do, particularly when you’re dealing with a professional sports league and franchises and people’s passionate commitment to the game and for the team they root for is, it has to be sustainable.
"People think a second franchise has been viable here for three decades."

"Well, your only thinking short-term."


htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 11:38 AM
  #7
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Oh good, it only took three posts for someone to completely misquote Bettman, then outdo himself by twisting the quote completely out of context and otherwise miss the point of what he was saying, proving Bettman's own point about how he gets misquoted and twisted out of context.
Ya? Explain it to us then Buck.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 12:32 PM
  #8
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by viper0220 View Post
After reading that article, I can see why Gary is smart his words are so chosen. Eric D. asks a lot of questions(good questions) and none of them are given a straight answer(now that's lawyer talk).
Think Bettman summed it up himself in the interview.
Quote:
Bettman: Because of the way my words get scrutinized, I have to use a level of precision so people don’t accuse me of misleading them. There are people expressing interest and I’m not denying that. But we’re not turning that into a formal process to move forward. Could that change in the future? It could. And is it no forever? Nothing’s forever. I’m trying to be as open and honest and clear as possible and while it may not satisfy either your journalistic or emotional needs, what I’m saying is completely accurate.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 01:27 PM
  #9
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Expansion is happening, it's just not ready yet. That's pretty obvious.

3 locations are all interested. Two for expansion, one for if/when PHX caves in.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 05:28 PM
  #10
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Yup, definitely. That's why we had a lockout last year.

To service the fans, to serve the game on the ice. The money is only "secondary."



"People think a second franchise has been viable here for three decades."

"Well, your only thinking short-term."

He looks pretty silly for saying this actually. Had he offered one shred of support to what favored other markets over the longer term, at least you'd have some inkling of how he was drawing that conclusion.

I think he knows and some of us know that MLSE would simply fight tooth and nail to block any such move, and the BOG may simply not have the stomach for it (or the need).

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 07:53 PM
  #11
2525
Leafs Tank Nation
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
He looks pretty silly for saying this actually. Had he offered one shred of support to what favored other markets over the longer term, at least you'd have some inkling of how he was drawing that conclusion.

I think he knows and some of us know that MLSE would simply fight tooth and nail to block any such move, and the BOG may simply not have the stomach for it (or the need).
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing Bettman has ever said.

2525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 08:06 PM
  #12
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,520
vCash: 500
Talking about player safety and whatnot but none of his questions address the problem of improving the on-ice product....if you want more revenue then improve your product first like any other business. Making nets slightly shallower and goaltending pads slightly smaller by 2" per pad isn't enough.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 08:07 PM
  #13
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2525 View Post
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing Bettman has ever said.

It's one of those things that actually get him some of the derision he gets. I understand needing to be careful with his wording, but don't act like someone is stupid to fall for such a specious explanation.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2013, 08:30 PM
  #14
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,305
vCash: 500
I could be reading him wrong -- could anyone be blamed for misreading Bettman? -- but it sounds to me like what he's making an indirect reference to the ups and downs of the effort to locate a second team in the GTA. It seems like forever ago that Canadian teams were holding on by the skin of their teeth, but it wasn't that long in the scope of franchise lifetimes. The Leafs were relatively secure during that period, but a second Toronto team would likely have struggled. And then there's the on-again-off-again drama with Hamilton, Markham, etc.

It sounds to me like, without coming right out and saying it in as many words, he's indicating that he doesn't want to put a team in Hamilton or wherever and then have it become an Islanders/Clippers/Nets type of situation a couple of decades later.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 05:24 AM
  #15
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 11,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
It sounds to me like, without coming right out and saying it in as many words, he's indicating that he doesn't want to put a team in Hamilton or wherever and then have it become an Islanders/Clippers/Nets type of situation a couple of decades later.
Okay, but he has a bunch of teams in exotic locations that are already in that situation even without a more popular local competitor.

Ugmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 09:09 AM
  #16
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
So Bettman is really worried about the Canadian Dollar bottoming out at 60cents again? Doubt it.

Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 09:12 AM
  #17
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
So Bettman is really worried about the Canadian Dollar bottoming out at 60cents again? Doubt it.
I think the comment about a "bubble" was pretty likely a reference to the exchange rate.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 01:29 PM
  #18
2525
Leafs Tank Nation
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,245
vCash: 500
Let's see how my memory is.
I believe (could be out a smidgen) in the entire existence of the Canadian assistance plan it provided welfare (Ted Leonis word, not mine) to I think 4 Canadian teams (could be 3) less $$ than what one team receives in maximum revenue sharing in one year today. Could be 2 years.

Just say it gary, stop the BS and tell us...you really don't want anymore teams you know where.

2525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 01:44 PM
  #19
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... Boy is that funny. Just typical Bettmanesque. "youve been pitching it for 30 years and it hasnt come to fruition". In other words Eric, your obviously a loser. Thirty years youve been pitching this and it still aint sticking to the wall huh?... or that wonderful "well my friend, thats the snapshot version, not the whole movie"... again, in other words, your just not clued in to the big picture here Pal... I hope he never retires. Seems all re-born as a nurdy little nano bot these days. God Bless you Gary Bettman.
What I find funny ( not that we are keeping score here ) is that if someone comes to Bettman about pitching to put a second team in Toronto, they are told they are not looking at the big picture so it must be a bad idea.... but then you have the NHL trying to pitch the ideal of a big U.S. TV contract for the last 44 years ( which has not and never will come to fruition ) as being a good idea and the big picture.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2013, 02:09 PM
  #20
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
What I find funny ( not that we are keeping score here ) is that if someone comes to Bettman about pitching to put a second team in Toronto, they are told they are not looking at the big picture so it must be a bad idea.... but then you have the NHL trying to pitch the ideal of a big U.S. TV contract for the last 44 years ( which has not and never will come to fruition ) as being a good idea and the big picture.
... ya. Gary Bettman's a Lawyer. He's a facilitator and an expeditor. By vocation & training. He's not a visionary however as spokesperson for the league he has to say something when asked such questions and so his natural inclination when asked such questions is to immediately question his interrogators premise (here of course that Toronto & Southern Ontario could easily handle another team, be a huge boon to revenues etc) through condescension & or obfuscation, playing word games, just generally being obtuse & argumentative. The really frustrating thing for the media & of course the fans is that if Gary Bettman cant answer these questions then who can & who do we really want to be asking them of if we were ever even allowed access to them? These things are apparently determined by Committee & the Board of Governors. So should we be asking the Chairman of the Board Governors and or the current Chair of the NHL's Expansion & Relocation Committee rather than the hired gun in Commissioner Bettman? Because he's never answered any of these questions to just about everyone & anyones satisfaction. He's their Firewall. Thats all he is. The real powers resting behind that and obviously there isnt the consensus amongst them all that Gary's smiling face suggests. Some would like to see Contraction; others further Expansion & so on.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2013, 09:51 AM
  #21
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
He looks pretty silly for saying this actually. Had he offered one shred of support to what favored other markets over the longer term, at least you'd have some inkling of how he was drawing that conclusion.

I think he knows and some of us know that MLSE would simply fight tooth and nail to block any such move, and the BOG may simply not have the stomach for it (or the need).
I think it's two-fold:

1) Let's put a team in GTA/Horseshoe. Does it require indemnification fees for the Leafs (no big deal) AND Sabres?

2) Where would this team play? Would it have direct competition to the ACC for other events?

That's the problem I foresee with Copps Coliseum. As we all know, any team that plays out of there would end up paying an expansion fee, two indemnification fees, and then for upgrades to Copps to actually make it more suitable for NHL hockey (think suites). And for the same decades that Duhatschek has been lobbying for a second team, those questions get harder and harder to answer as the finances become more and more complex.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2013, 09:53 AM
  #22
tony d
Follow your Nose
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,977
vCash: 500
I would hope that if the NHL does expand (Which I expect will happen by the end of this decade) it expands to markets where it will work. Quebec City is 1 of those markets, I hope Bettman realizes that and puts a team there.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2013, 10:48 AM
  #23
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
I think it's two-fold:

1) Let's put a team in GTA/Horseshoe. Does it require indemnification fees for the Leafs (no big deal) AND Sabres?

2) Where would this team play? Would it have direct competition to the ACC for other events?

That's the problem I foresee with Copps Coliseum. As we all know, any team that plays out of there would end up paying an expansion fee, two indemnification fees, and then for upgrades to Copps to actually make it more suitable for NHL hockey (think suites). And for the same decades that Duhatschek has been lobbying for a second team, those questions get harder and harder to answer as the finances become more and more complex.
Ya, thats the problem alright. Even doing Gangbusters at the Box Office, in securing lucrative local broadcasting contracts etc a Toronto2 or Hamilton franchises' first ownership group would be well behind the 8Ball for quite some time. Expansion Fee's and Indemnification, a new building and or upgrades to Copps followed by a new building in Hamilton within the next 20yrs would certainly require some deep pockets. Its possible some of these expenditures could be mitigated somewhat, like cutting a deal with Bell/Rogers in awarding one or both a portion of local broadcast contracts for a 10yr period in lieu of indemnification. Maybe also awarding MLSE the Management Contract at Copps or what have you. Have to get creative otherwise you might never get yourself out of debt, setting things up really for a 2nd or even 3rd owner to eventually come in & realize serious profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
I would hope that if the NHL does expand (Which I expect will happen by the end of this decade) it expands to markets where it will work. Quebec City is 1 of those markets, I hope Bettman realizes that and puts a team there.
Im pretty sure he does, has stated as much. The decision isnt his alone to be making though. Its still very much an open question as to why the NHL consummated the deal that they did in Phoenix when they couldve been completely shucked of the problem in 2012 or 2013 in selling to PKP in QC. Perfectly suitable temporary home in the Colisee', new building on the way, small but excellent market, deep roots, more than enough local corporate heft, beyond passionate fan base. Could be any number of reasons, some understandable, others not so much. But ya, Im convinced Quebec's in-line for an Expansion franchise, perhaps as early 2015/16 along with Seattle.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 09:50 PM
  #24
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
I think it's two-fold:

1) Let's put a team in GTA/Horseshoe. Does it require indemnification fees for the Leafs (no big deal) AND Sabres?

2) Where would this team play? Would it have direct competition to the ACC for other events?

That's the problem I foresee with Copps Coliseum. As we all know, any team that plays out of there would end up paying an expansion fee, two indemnification fees, and then for upgrades to Copps to actually make it more suitable for NHL hockey (think suites). And for the same decades that Duhatschek has been lobbying for a second team, those questions get harder and harder to answer as the finances become more and more complex.
This might sound very silly but, i gotta ask.

I get that the NHL is a closed shop but given NAFTA can a team based in the states actually lay territory claim to Canadian soil?

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 07:52 AM
  #25
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
This might sound very silly but, i gotta ask.

I get that the NHL is a closed shop but given NAFTA can a team based in the states actually lay territory claim to Canadian soil?
The NHL Constitution doesn't discriminate based on a country's borders. The NHL Constitution gives a team an exclusive 50-mile radius around the city in which they play as a home territory. Then, the NHL Constitution also states that no other team can claim part of another team's home territory, so techically the teams would have to be spaced 100 miles apart. Of course, unless indemnification is involved, which is how the Islanders, Devils and Ducks all became second-market teams within their own home market.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, the whole reason the Sabres' were able to start broadcasting into Fort Erie - St. Catharines up to Hamilton is because that is their home territory. MSG and the Sabres were able to come to that agreement with Bell to broadcast games into Southern Ontario.


Last edited by Grudy0: 11-21-2013 at 08:03 AM. Reason: added Sabres' home territory
Grudy0 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 08:30 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.