The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
With lockout now over, it's time for Gary Bettman to step down
I can see the owners wanting to fire him. He prolonged the lockout by two months with demands that he later caved on.
That's about $500m in direct revenues the owners lost because he royally screwed up the negotiations, not to mention the long term damage to the league.
And now he's considered a cancer by pretty much everyone in the game, likely including the owners who forced him to complete a deal. He's a terrible ambassador for the game.
I don't think he'll be shoved, but I think he'll get a push. A juicy retirement package should do the trick.
As usual, the article can't list anything he's personally done wrong in the position. Just that fans are angry and he's a persuasive person to be angry at.
As usual, the article can't list anything he's personally done wrong in the position. Just that fans are angry and he's a persuasive person to be angry at.
of course. Gary will remain and should. Personally I have grown fond of the little fellow.
I can see the owners wanting to fire him. He prolonged the lockout by two months with demands that he later caved on.
Like what?
He demanded 50% at a time when the union was offering 50% plus $500M in make whole money. He ended up meeting them a little more than halfway.
He demanded contracting terms that the union initially wanted nothing to do with. He won a modified version. I think 50% total variance and a seven year cap on UFA deals is pretty good stuff.
It's not like this is the offer the union gave them in October.
He demanded 50% at a time when the union was offering 50% plus $500M in make whole money. He ended up meeting them a little more than halfway.
He demanded contracting terms that the union initially wanted nothing to do with. He won a modified version. I think 50% total variance and a seven year cap on UFA deals is pretty good stuff.
It's not like this is the offer the union gave them in October.
All the league was able to do on the contract rights front was basically close the worst loopholes. Everyone knew it was going to be closed, and the union's offer at that time would mostly have had the same effect as the current 7/8 year restrictions.
The minor concessions the NHLPA made after that point would have likely happened anyhow if the deal had been agreed to then.
Basically, Bettman turned the lockout from a hiccup to a gut punch.
I honestly think Gary retires at his own time and choosing ala Stern in the NBA. Yes a lot of games have been lost but he's gotten the players share of revenue down in double digits over the last two lockouts-he's saved the owners a lot of money they feel, and yes I honestly think the owners, despite losing so many games, would probably say (IMO) they lost LESS money than if they had given players massive concessions (I don't necessarily agree with that thought)and that's why Gary won't ever get fired.
Like presiding over more games lost to labor strife than the three other major team sports leagues combined.
I know that statistic. My question was entirely different, about what demands he caved in this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie
All the league was able to do on the contract rights front was basically close the worst loopholes. Everyone knew it was going to be closed, and the union's offer at that time would mostly have had the same effect as the current 7/8 year restrictions.
The minor concessions the NHLPA made after that point would have likely happened anyhow if the deal had been agreed to then.
Basically, Bettman turned the lockout from a hiccup to a gut punch.
That's all assumption on your part. Just because the PA didn't propose any changes to contracting rights in October doesn't mean they somehow implicitly agreed then to changes that they accepted in January. If anything, refusing to even negotiate contracting rights until afterwards indicates that the PA wasn't willing to move on them at all.
That's all assumption on your part. Just because the PA didn't propose any changes to contracting rights in October doesn't mean they somehow implicitly agreed then to changes that they accepted in January. If anything, refusing to even negotiate contracting rights until afterwards indicates that the PA wasn't willing to move on them at all.
Except they did make concessions on contract rights with the cap benefit recapture proposal. That would have closed the loopholes. You might still see longer contracts, but most of them would end at 36 / 37, when most player retire.
It's sad that the Bettman apologists STILL aren't able to come to grips with how badly he screwed this up.
Except they did make concessions on contract rights with the cap benefit recapture proposal. That would have closed the loopholes. You might still see longer contracts, but most of them would end at 36 / 37, when most player retire.
It's sad that the Bettman apologists STILL aren't able to come to grips with how badly he screwed this up.
What OP is suggesting is that all 30 owners resign/give up ownership of their teams?
Because Bettman was hired by, works for, and represents the owners. To say anything else would imply a very shallow understanding of the position of commissioner.
It's also arguable whether or not another commissioner would have lost more games. If the owners had the stomach to do what was right like Bettman suggested in 94, we may have had more labour peace.
I'm not going to take you through every step of the negotiation process. If you weren't paying attention to the progression of the talks, please refrain from making pronouncements about them now.
I'm not going to take you through every step of the negotiation process. If you weren't paying attention to the progression of the talks, please refrain from making pronouncements about them now.
This is just dumb and insulting. I'm not asking for every step. If you say that two months ago the union was proposing contracting rules that were as good as what Gary Bettman ended up getting, that detail of that offer will suffice. Thank you.
This is just dumb and insulting. I'm not asking for every step. If you say that two months ago the union was proposing contracting rules that were as good as what Gary Bettman ended up getting, that detail of that offer will suffice. Thank you.
Why would I bother to have this discussion with someone who is clearly extremely biased? Especially with someone who is ignorant, ie, admitting that they don't know the details but making statements regardless.
If you don't know what the cap benefit recapture formula that the players proposed is, spend some time googling it. That's the best you're going to get from me.
I kind of agree, not from an overall dislike of Bettman but because I feel his position as a long time commissioner has become too entrenched and powerful. I'm specifically looking at how he can put a stranglehold on labour negotiations with the help of only 8 teams and the ability to fine owners a million bucks for speaking out. That can't be healthy for peaceful and productive labour negotiations.
Also, maybe this is the way that it's supposed to be, but should we really have the guy that stands up as the face of the league for presentations and ceremonies (entry draft, Stanley Cup presentation, all-star game, Hall of Fame, etc) be the same guy that has the honour of officially locking players out causing games to be lost and be the face of heated labour negotiations?
It's basically shaking hands and wiping your ass with the same hand. Wouldn't it be more productive for the owners/league to split these duties?
What OP is suggesting is that all 30 owners resign/give up ownership of their teams?
Because Bettman was hired by, works for, and represents the owners. To say anything else would imply a very shallow understanding of the position of commissioner.
It's also arguable whether or not another commissioner would have lost more games. If the owners had the stomach to do what was right like Bettman suggested in 94, we may have had more labour peace.
True. But he gets paid $8 million per year so you have to assume that he is not just a puppet but that he provides advice to the owners, a number of whom are beholden to him for approving their purchase of an NHL team .
People also need to stop making excuses and apologizing for Bettman. His record speaks for itself. A total of almost two seasons lost and three work stoppages during his tenure. What would it take for people to actually hold him accountable? Four work stoppages? Five?
True. But he gets paid $8 million per year so you have to assume that he is not just a puppet but that he provides advice to the owners, a number of whom are beholden to him for approving their purchase of an NHL team .
People also need to stop making excuses and apologizing for Bettman. His record speaks for itself. A total of almost two seasons lost and three work stoppages during his tenure. What would it take for people to actually hold him accountable? Four work stoppages? Five?
As if all the NHL lockouts happened in a vacuum - for no reason at all. Like he didn't have to deal with the most entitled sports union ever in history... (lowest revenues, higher salaries than NFL players, guaranteed contracts, etc.)
As if all the NHL lockouts happened in a vacuum - for no reason at all. Like he didn't have to deal with the most entitled sports union ever in history... (lowest revenues, higher salaries than NFL players, guaranteed contracts, etc.)
Yes, the NHLPA does speak for itself.
Yes. Poor Gary. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Three times now.
The most seasons lost of any commissioner of any professional sports.
( I even managed one more laugh than you!)
I can see the owners wanting to fire him. He prolonged the lockout by two months with demands that he later caved on.
That's about $500m in direct revenues the owners lost because he royally screwed up the negotiations, not to mention the long term damage to the league.
And now he's considered a cancer by pretty much everyone in the game, likely including the owners who forced him to complete a deal. He's a terrible ambassador for the game.
Such as? He got everything the owners wanted (just not quite as tight as the owners wanted - 50%, 7/8 yr limits, 35/50% variance).
That 500m in lost revenues, most of it would have gone to the players and team expenses... It's a very misleading number - much like how the league & the PA tote 'record revenues'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39
As usual, the article can't list anything he's personally done wrong in the position. Just that fans are angry and he's a persuasive person to be angry at.
Agreed.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
It's sad that the Bettman apologists STILL aren't able to come to grips with how badly he screwed this up.
It probably has something to do with the fact that he didn't. I always wondered about that. He gets tons of hate (which is what his position/job dictates), but no one gives him any credit for the good things he's done for the league.
