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, and NHL revenues.

Arrogance, Foolishness and Incompetence Playing Lead Role In NHL Lockout Saga

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2012, 08:41 AM
  #1
FrozenRoyalty
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Arrogance, Foolishness and Incompetence Playing Lead Role In NHL Lockout Saga

Arrogance, Foolishness and Incompetence Playing Lead Role In NHL Lockout Saga

FrozenRoyalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:13 AM
  #2
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
In fact, he was hired by NHL owners, some of whom are very much behind his “lockout first, negotiate later” collective bargaining strategy.
I found this line funny considering the owners wanted to talk almost a year ago and the players dragged their feet until July.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:20 AM
  #3
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
I found this line funny considering the owners wanted to talk almost a year ago and the players dragged their feet until July.
Don't forget about the realignment, which was rejected by the NHLPA for no apparent reason.

Mayor Bee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:21 AM
  #4
kootenayfan
Registered User
 
kootenayfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southeastern BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,106
vCash: 500
No season or half season, Bettman needs to step down when this is all said and done.

kootenayfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:17 AM
  #5
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,084
vCash: 500
that article is trying to say that revenue sharing is the reason why the players will not agree to a smaller piece of the pie. Its actually quite a poorly written article in that it is clear the writer does not fully understand the issues. While I do agree that there should be more in the way of revenue sharing, that is not what is holding up an agreement at this point in time.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:24 AM
  #6
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Don't forget about the realignment, which was rejected by the NHLPA for no apparent reason.
To a point I understood that. There were minor issues however I think they should've just been pointed out and addressed.

Biggest one that stuck out to me was only the top four of each division making it to the playoffs. Should be top eight. To think one of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Nashville would be out is unacceptable.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:29 AM
  #7
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
To a point I understood that. There were minor issues however I think they should've just been pointed out and addressed.

Biggest one that stuck out to me was only the top four of each division making it to the playoffs. Should be top eight. To think one of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Nashville would be out is unacceptable.
top 8? So you wanted every team to make the playoffs then?

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:41 AM
  #8
FrozenRoyalty
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
that article is trying to say that revenue sharing is the reason why the players will not agree to a smaller piece of the pie. Its actually quite a poorly written article in that it is clear the writer does not fully understand the issues. While I do agree that there should be more in the way of revenue sharing, that is not what is holding up an agreement at this point in time.
Thanks for the comment. Actually, I had no intention of saying anything of the sort. I've edited the story to clarify that revenue sharing isn't the biggest issue, even though it is a significant one.

FrozenRoyalty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:11 AM
  #9
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
To a point I understood that. There were minor issues however I think they should've just been pointed out and addressed.

Biggest one that stuck out to me was only the top four of each division making it to the playoffs. Should be top eight. To think one of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Nashville would be out is unacceptable.
So you want a merit based playoff system, or just specific teams should make it? And what does Minnesota have to do with anything involving the other teams in that group?

The reason it was proposed as the top 4 in each conference was because nobody wants to travel west. The central time zone teams, plus Detroit and Columbus, have a huge issue with travel. The whole proposed realignment was to make Detroit as happy as possible, without pissing off Philly(very powerful owner) and Pittsburgh(powerful owner + face of the league player).

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:28 AM
  #10
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,074
vCash: 500
Bettman's greatest flaw in these particular negotiations is that he's been allowing Fehr to get under his skin. Doesn't matter how unreasonable the other side seems to be, when you know that regardless you have to deal with them, then you have to maintain your cool, continue to play the negotiation game even if means that it seems that much of the time you're wasting time. As soon as you start 'reacting' rather than keeping the focus on the objective (finding whatever way you can to reach a deal, trying to wear the other side down) then you start gving the other side the idea that you're the one being unreasonable.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:28 AM
  #11
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,105
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrozenRoyalty View Post
Thanks for the comment. Actually, I had no intention of saying anything of the sort. I've edited the story to clarify that revenue sharing isn't the biggest issue, even though it is a significant one.
MOD

Why do you think all the of the blame should been on Bettman' and the owners shoulders?

Do you not think that it was in any way necessary for the last lockout to try to bring the players share down from 75 percent?

Do you not think that the PA's refusal to negotiate until the season was about to start this time and the foot dragging and stalling bear some responsibility for the loss of this season so far?


Last edited by Fugu: 12-23-2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason: it's allowed per the HFB Partner Program
pepty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:37 AM
  #12
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
I have to say that dismissing the league's increase of $1 billion is pretty ridiculous. Which do you think the owners would rather have:
a) a shortened season and two cancelled season but an extra $1 billion in revenues every year
or
b) No lockouts but only $2 billion (or less if we want to go back far enough) in revenues per year.

Now all this extra revenue can't be credited to Bettman but he was pretty important in getting it. Also the lockouts are not entirely due to him either.

Anyhow, saying the league's financial growth is "completely obliterated" by the lockouts is nonsense. The fans probably feel this way but I'm sure the owners (Bettman's bosses) don't.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:37 AM
  #13
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
that article is trying to say that revenue sharing is the reason why the players will not agree to a smaller piece of the pie. Its actually quite a poorly written article in that it is clear the writer does not fully understand the issues. While I do agree that there should be more in the way of revenue sharing, that is not what is holding up an agreement at this point in time.
It isn't an issue that's being discussed.

But it's the biggest issue facing the league.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:39 AM
  #14
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
To a point I understood that. There were minor issues however I think they should've just been pointed out and addressed.

Biggest one that stuck out to me was only the top four of each division making it to the playoffs. Should be top eight. To think one of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Nashville would be out is unacceptable.
Such is life.

Some years you'll have the easy division. Some years you'll have the hard one.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:53 AM
  #15
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Puck View Post
I have to say that dismissing the league's increase of $1 billion is pretty ridiculous. Which do you think the owners would rather have:
a) a shortened season and two cancelled season but an extra $1 billion in revenues every year
or
b) No lockouts but only $2 billion (or less if we want to go back far enough) in revenues per year.

Now all this extra revenue can't be credited to Bettman but he was pretty important in getting it. Also the lockouts are not entirely due to him either.

Anyhow, saying the league's financial growth is "completely obliterated" by the lockouts is nonsense. The fans probably feel this way but I'm sure the owners (Bettman's bosses) don't.
Bettman's expansion scheme increased revenue but created the problems we have now. If you have ten teams losing money even though they are increasing the total revenue you have the situation we have now. Bettman made the owners a lot of money up front with expansion which I would guess is why they are so loyal to him. However he is an abysmal failure when it comes to turning the NHL into a successful league. The only way to bail out his plan is for the successful franchises to share money with the failing franchises which the owners are not willing to do. Instead they are seeking to have the players subsidize the failure. Bettman is the worst commissioner in sports and he created this whole debacle.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:12 PM
  #16
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayfan View Post
No season or half season, Bettman needs to step down when this is all said and done.
Step down? Didn't you know he's a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame?

Seriously though. Couldn't agree more.

Yeah he's grown the league, but at the expense of the generational fans and he seems incapable of ridding himself of his ego, emotions, small person syndrome lol, whatever you want to call it, going into negotiations.

He started off with a threat of a lockout, which in my opinion should have been a very last resort. Do everything to avoid it, not use that as your first bargaining chip. He needs to go, the league will be better for it.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:22 PM
  #17
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
I liked the article. I thought it was very good.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:27 PM
  #18
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
So you want a merit based playoff system, or just specific teams should make it? And what does Minnesota have to do with anything involving the other teams in that group?
Oh gosh, other than being in the same division as the other four teams mentioned, I don't know what Minnesota has to do with it at all.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:31 PM
  #19
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
The writer blames expansion into unfavorable markets as a leading cause for these teams losing money. OK, so what about teams like Buffalo and St Louis? He fails to even mention them, or to even consider that the problems are much deeper than just locale. Good work.....NOT!

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:32 PM
  #20
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Bettman's expansion scheme increased revenue but created the problems we have now. If you have ten teams losing money even though they are increasing the total revenue you have the situation we have now. Bettman made the owners a lot of money up front with expansion which I would guess is why they are so loyal to him. However he is an abysmal failure when it comes to turning the NHL into a successful league. The only way to bail out his plan is for the successful franchises to share money with the failing franchises which the owners are not willing to do. Instead they are seeking to have the players subsidize the failure. Bettman is the worst commissioner in sports and he created this whole debacle.
Those 10 to 13 teams are primarily only losing money because the salary levels are too high for them. And on top of those 13 teams is another 9 teams which are only barely breaking even or making minimal profits. How do you or anyone explain that there are about 20+ teams which are either losing money or barely breaking even or with minimal profits?
I Challenge Anyone here to explain that to me!

If you're like me and see the primary variable which puts so many teams barely above, at, or below the profit margin as being the cost of maintaining a competitive team, then Revenue Sharing isn't the primary answer to that problem. YES, Revenue Sharing needs to be better, but player salary costs need also to be under greater control. And the the League can't simply do that because it wants to, it needs the players agreement, or else it can be viewed as colusion.

And Yes, unless teams like Toronto, the Rangers, and Montreal participate in massive Revenue Sharing then those teams will be raking in big profits, but that's just the way of the world. Those teams, among a couple of others, are just lucky to be in those markets. The need the Revenue Share more, but it's not the norm for any successful franchise, in whatever business, to give up the majority of its profit line to sharing, especially when the number of teams, in this case, which would be Sharing out is only about 1/2 of those which would be receiving.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:50 PM
  #21
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
I remember one of Bettmans recent press conferences where he said something to the effect of: distrust? I dont even know what that means, its just hard collective bargaining.

Many fans keep harping on the fact that after the PA's last attempt at rewriting one of those bottom up, people power constitutions which failed as was inevitable with the Kelly coup, that the failure of the PA to hire someone seen as more accommodating and likely to capitulate is the cause of this lockout.

But Bettman cant even understand what trust has to do with this? He has no intention of attempting to foster that relationship, it is totally foreign to his style which is well documented and currently right on schedule.

He has a PA that makes an opening offer acknowledging some challenging issues for the league and to work to lessen the percentage of revenues they take and he has no ability to capitalize on that, nor any acknowledgement it should be required of him, nor any public steps taken to even appear likeable and amenable to compromise.

Bettman and Jacobs, at their hardline tea party, slap the players in the face, dismiss every offer condescendingly, try to get them to agree to conditions without their representation, suggest trust has nothing to do with it and its all hard bargaining. And we're supposed to feel sorry for them and think they wouldnt throw away half a season just to get several hundred million a year more for 7 years unless they really needed it?

If i did believe that, i would certainly act much more pro-owner as i guess we categorize it. Just takes too much cognitive dissonance for me to believe it.


I remember a story Bruce Firestone, one of the original guys behind getting a team back in Ottawa, once told about his experience when applying for the team. He said the day before the announcement was to be made, at the hotel where all were and the presentations were being made, one of the owners pulled him aside and said, you realize that there is no chance we would grant a team to Ottawa. Firestone was shocked and obviously devastated. He said nothing to anyone around him though. And then just before the announcement, someone came to get him and led him down a back service elevator through the basement and the kitchen, presumably so no one would see him leaving and blow their surprise that Ottawa didnt get a team.

Such a silly little bit of trivia and yet to me seems so typical of their character. These guys are paying an army of top help to play hard ball. And arent regretting it as arrogant, foolish or incompetent because they are winning and so are giving Bettman raises. But other than that, yes, i suppose they are just like you me and me as fans, fighting together against the evil greedy players and their svengolly for all that is right and fair.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:02 PM
  #22
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Those 10 to 13 teams are primarily only losing money because the salary levels are too high for them. And on top of those 13 teams is another 9 teams which are only barely breaking even or making minimal profits. How do you or anyone explain that there are about 20+ teams which are either losing money or barely breaking even or with minimal profits?
I Challenge Anyone here to explain that to me!

If you're like me and see the primary variable which puts so many teams barely above, at, or below the profit margin as being the cost of maintaining a competitive team, then Revenue Sharing isn't the primary answer to that problem. YES, Revenue Sharing needs to be better, but player salary costs need also to be under greater control. And the the League can't simply do that because it wants to, it needs the players agreement, or else it can be viewed as colusion.

And Yes, unless teams like Toronto, the Rangers, and Montreal participate in massive Revenue Sharing then those teams will be raking in big profits, but that's just the way of the world. Those teams, among a couple of others, are just lucky to be in those markets. The need the Revenue Share more, but it's not the norm for any successful franchise, in whatever business, to give up the majority of its profit line to sharing, especially when the number of teams, in this case, which would be Sharing out is only about 1/2 of those which would be receiving.
The norm for franchises in other businesses is really irrelevant though isnt it? Other businesses arent a league with a salary cap and linkage. When you force 30 equal spending teams and link the spending to revenues, you cant then complain the players must be locked out because why should you be forced to revenue share as well? It is the obvious necessary accompaniment that every other league recognized and so IS the primary solution to the current stated problem. They already got player costs under control. They are directly linked to revenues. Completely. That part has been solved.

That many teams arent making huge operational profits, may be true, but is also a very manipulatable number. Im sure if the PA were given the ability to make a decisions, they would create books that showed a much higher operational profit and smaller non-shared franchise values. There is no reason to believe that the operatiopnal profit books are structured in order to maximize that number.

But more than that, i challenge you to justify to me why every team actually deserved a profit last year and every year.

Even more than that, why as a fan would we want a system that grants owners a profit even when they run their team like incompetent fools? I would be upset at our owner if he made any money when the team tried but failed to get past the 2nd round of the playoffs, cause that means to me he didnt try hard enough. I think such an outcome points to a healthy system, not one requiring guaranteed profits.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:18 PM
  #23
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
I found this line funny considering the owners wanted to talk almost a year ago and the players dragged their feet until July.

Since the owners won't negotiate now, when the season is hanging by a thread, what makes you think they would have negotiated back then when nothing was at stake?

colchar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:20 PM
  #24
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
Since the owners won't negotiate now, when the season is hanging by a thread, what makes you think they would have negotiated back then when nothing was at stake?
Exactly!

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:36 PM
  #25
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
The norm for franchises in other businesses is really irrelevant though isnt it? Other businesses arent a league with a salary cap and linkage. When you force 30 equal spending teams and link the spending to revenues, you cant then complain the players must be locked out because why should you be forced to revenue share as well? It is the obvious necessary accompaniment that every other league recognized and so IS the primary solution to the current stated problem. They already got player costs under control. They are directly linked to revenues. Completely. That part has been solved.

That many teams arent making huge operational profits, may be true, but is also a very manipulatable number. Im sure if the PA were given the ability to make a decisions, they would create books that showed a much higher operational profit and smaller non-shared franchise values. There is no reason to believe that the operatiopnal profit books are structured in order to maximize that number.

But more than that, i challenge you to justify to me why every team actually deserved a profit last year and every year.


Even more than that, why as a fan would we want a system that grants owners a profit even when they run their team like incompetent fools? I would be upset at our owner if he made any money when the team tried but failed to get past the 2nd round of the playoffs, cause that means to me he didnt try hard enough. I think such an outcome points to a healthy system, not one requiring guaranteed profits.
You know, I don't see where what you said and what I said is so far apart, though you used a stronger adjective or two here and there, and you added in a couple more points which I hadn't mentioned.

First, I said that I agree that there should be more Revenue Sharing, which is something that doesn't "normally" exist in other businesses. When I mentioned the word "norm" I was referring to it being normal that businesses expect some sort of profit margin.

As for "huge" profit margins, I never used that word and it's an exaggeration of the point that I was making. I was referring to what I would call "reasonable" profit margins, if a business or a League in this case is working under an economic structure that's functioning. If the scenario is as it is, with so many teams losing money and another large group barely breaking even, then there would appear to be some problem with the economic structure that's in place. Revenue Sharing should be used to fill the gaps, not to fix a flawed structure.

If teams are spending 60+ million in salaries, in addition to all other operational costs, then I'd think that a comparative $ amount that could be a "reasonable" profit margin would be at least $10 million. But even at $10 million, which is a relatively small number in this context, only 12 teams last year made that much in profits. For the League to be functioning well economically, there should be at minimum 1/2 the teams experiencing a reasonable profit margin. And no, I wouldn't expect that every team, in any given Season, should have a positive profit margin, but there shouldn't be no more than a maximum of 1/4 of the League losing money in any given Season, not almost double that amount. And then again, Revenue Sharing is to make up that difference, sharing out to that 1/4 of the League who experienced losses.

And for fans spending money on teams with incompetent management,... Tell Toronto fans to stop doing it, and then that might just bring a bit more balance to the League economically. Atlanta fans, Columbus fans, Dallas fans, they're acting normal by having declining attendance numbers when the team sucks(ed).

And finally, as for "manipulable" numbers,... Fine, they can be manipulable, but what else is there is base calculations on? Just choosing a number out of the sky and saying, I believe this to be the true number... You need to provide contrary evidence, evidence to show that the numbers being used aren't the true numbers. If a lot of this problem between the owners and the players is coming down to the players not trusting the owners numbers, then that's exactly where the owners' position needs to be attacked, and the players need to find ways to proof that the numbers given aren't the true numbers. Otherwise, what else is there to go on?


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-23-2012 at 01:46 PM.
MoreOrr 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 10:43 PM.

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.