HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What is your opinion of Bettman

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2005, 02:49 PM
  #1
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
What is your opinion of Bettman

For me I hate the guy so much that it really doesnt matter to me what happens with the CBA in regards to how I feel about him or his legacy so to speak.

When he took over the NHL it seemed poised to become a legit sport in all of North America and to me he messed it up so bad that hockey is in the shape that it is now.

Does the fact that he was the guy that was commisioner when the Owners decided that they need to get their financial house in order change your opinion about him one way or the other.

It doesnt change mine I still think he has done a horrible job

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 02:58 PM
  #2
gr8haluschak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
For me I hate the guy so much that it really doesnt matter to me what happens with the CBA in regards to how I feel about him or his legacy so to speak.

When he took over the NHL it seemed poised to become a legit sport in all of North America and to me he messed it up so bad that hockey is in the shape that it is now.

Does the fact that he was the guy that was commisioner when the Owners decided that they need to get their financial house in order change your opinion about him one way or the other.

It doesnt change mine I still think he has done a horrible job
How were they going to be a legitimate sport in North America without a network TV deal ? , which he got.

gr8haluschak is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 02:59 PM
  #3
DJmastamind
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 504
vCash: 500
I agree I think he had done a horrible job as commisioner. He took a game with tons of potential and ruined it. Not to mention he has been apart of TWO work stoppages now, 1994 and currently.

I do think that he has taken the steps necessary to help fix the game through the lockout, but the owners need to do their part. Bettman hadn't taken advantage of advertising opertunities or marketing stratagies.

Think Forbes magazine had an article about the top 10 worst ceo's. He was in the top 5, if I remember correctly.

DJmastamind is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 03:38 PM
  #4
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
How were they going to be a legitimate sport in North America without a network TV deal ? , which he got.
What has he done with that TV deal though, nothing the games appeal has shrunk to the point where their last TV deal was going to be a joke. I think he got that deal because the league was onthe verge of breaking through in all of North America when he took over. Look where it is now. In a ten year period or so he has hurt the game a ton in my opinion.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 03:46 PM
  #5
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
I won't argue at length about this, but if I'm a stockholder in a corporation, I would love to have a Gary Bettman running it. The guy has overseen unprecedented financial growth in his sport, and made the owners and players a lot of money.

You can debate the aesthetics of the changes in the NHL over the years, but more people have access to NHL hockey than ever before, at the rink and on television. To suggest that he's incompetent or a lousy CEO is foolishness.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 03:54 PM
  #6
gr8haluschak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
What has he done with that TV deal though, nothing the games appeal has shrunk to the point where their last TV deal was going to be a joke. I think he got that deal because the league was onthe verge of breaking through in all of North America when he took over. Look where it is now. In a ten year period or so he has hurt the game a ton in my opinion.
A network TV deal is essential to the success of any league, give your head a shake if you don't think that it is needed for any league to gain credibility. If it was not needed why would they have signed the NBC one where there is no guarentee of money. Tell me how are us supose to break through when no one can see the product ? The NHL problems in the United States date back to the Original Six when Campbell declined a CBS contract that would have given them advertising on Sunday Football then they would have been given that time slot after the NFL season was done.

gr8haluschak is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 03:54 PM
  #7
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
The problem with Bettman is that he isn't a hockey man. His knowledge of the sport is nothing less that insulting to any fan of the game.

He was brought in because he was a "forward thinker" and that he would turn the NHL into a revenue generating machine. He's failed miserably at both. His forward thinking has brought back neutral zone trap hockey, his forward thinking has brought hockey to non-traditional markets where it is on the verge of collapse, and his forward thinking has brought on two lockouts at a time when hockey was either at it's peak interest (1994 - still annoys me because hockey was on the verge of becoming bigger than the NBA and we witnessed probably the best hockey in a long time after the Rangers - Canucks Stanley Cup final) or when they were getting ready to break though again (the Olympics was something the league should have marketed how the game should be - once again, they failed miserably to take advantage of that opportunity).

While Bettman generated revenue, he allowed owners to go nuts with regards to spending. As commissioner, he had the ability to veto or deny trades, free agent signings, etc.....he did nothing. He allowed things to get to this point. He can say all he wants with regards to opening negotiations with the NHLPA a few years ago, fact of the matter is that all the problems with sport erupted under his watch.

Hey, I don't blame the guy for the state that hockey is in. Owners and players deserve fault here as well because they really blew open how bad things were (or good, depending on what side you're on) and did nothing to try to correct things.

Bettman needs to go once a deal is in place. He should stay on board for legal advice and such, but he is not a commissioner. Personally, I've always thought that Ken Dryder or Bobby Orr would make great commissioners because they have something instantly that Bettman doesn't have - credibility. As well, being on both sides, they have an introspective look at the game that very few have.

I don't think you'd see Goodenow or Saskin lambaste either one of them as well. That's why I don't get why the NHL never used Gretzky or Lemieux in the negotiations until it was too late. If they would have used the two of them right from the word go, we could have probably gotten somewhere. Instead, we get Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leopold, and Jim Rutherford. Good choices there.......

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:02 PM
  #8
Anthony*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
hes done the best that he can do in his current tenure and gets a bad rap for just about everything he does for some reason

Anthony* is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:14 PM
  #9
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
I think it is an amazing feat that I have a lesser opinion of Goodenow. I don't know how Bob managed it, but he did.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:23 PM
  #10
gr8haluschak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
The problem with Bettman is that he isn't a hockey man. His knowledge of the sport is nothing less that insulting to any fan of the game.

He was brought in because he was a "forward thinker" and that he would turn the NHL into a revenue generating machine. He's failed miserably at both. His forward thinking has brought back neutral zone trap hockey, his forward thinking has brought hockey to non-traditional markets where it is on the verge of collapse, and his forward thinking has brought on two lockouts at a time when hockey was either at it's peak interest (1994 - still annoys me because hockey was on the verge of becoming bigger than the NBA and we witnessed probably the best hockey in a long time after the Rangers - Canucks Stanley Cup final) or when they were getting ready to break though again (the Olympics was something the league should have marketed how the game should be - once again, they failed miserably to take advantage of that opportunity).

While Bettman generated revenue, he allowed owners to go nuts with regards to spending. As commissioner, he had the ability to veto or deny trades, free agent signings, etc.....he did nothing. He allowed things to get to this point. He can say all he wants with regards to opening negotiations with the NHLPA a few years ago, fact of the matter is that all the problems with sport erupted under his watch.

Hey, I don't blame the guy for the state that hockey is in. Owners and players deserve fault here as well because they really blew open how bad things were (or good, depending on what side you're on) and did nothing to try to correct things.

Bettman needs to go once a deal is in place. He should stay on board for legal advice and such, but he is not a commissioner. Personally, I've always thought that Ken Dryder or Bobby Orr would make great commissioners because they have something instantly that Bettman doesn't have - credibility. As well, being on both sides, they have an introspective look at the game that very few have.

I don't think you'd see Goodenow or Saskin lambaste either one of them as well. That's why I don't get why the NHL never used Gretzky or Lemieux in the negotiations until it was too late. If they would have used the two of them right from the word go, we could have probably gotten somewhere. Instead, we get Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leopold, and Jim Rutherford. Good choices there.......

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hold on there my first question is how was he responsible for bringing in the trap ? or did I miss rule 77.4A teams must employ the trap rule that he installed. You also sit there and grill him over the Olympics - well it was he who brought the NHL to the Olympics so obviously he realized the maginitute of having the best players in the world showcased on such a stage.
I already know the next response - well he could change the rules to get rid of it. well can HE - no it has to be agreed up he does not have that power.


I also like the fact that he can veto trades and such - what sense does that make ? Tell me in what other league does that happen, unless it is a gross detriment to the league. It is just dumb to say he should step in and meddle into these affairs.

I would also like to know how come no one brings up Goodenow in this, you talk about how all these problems have arised under Bettman but who was the PA head before Bob - Eagleson who was just a stooley for the oweners that is why there have been far fewer problems from the league perspective.

Yes his thinking has been flawed in terms of his expansion of the footprint of the league and the reliance of Blockbuster, Disney, and any other outside company to promote the league but still to blame everything that is wrong with the NHL on him, especially those that he cannot control, is just stupid.

gr8haluschak is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:24 PM
  #11
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
I couldnt stand him before the current lockout. Thought he was a weasel, a ****** bag even.

But I now have a small amount of respect for him. Not much but just a little.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:25 PM
  #12
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,426
vCash: 500
People easily take shots at him, but if you look at the growth of the revenue over the last 10 years, you have to at least acknowledge the successful parts of his tenure. (Although the players will take the credit for the growth, and when things decline, it is all Bettman's fault.)

Slats432 is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:33 PM
  #13
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
People easily take shots at him, but if you look at the growth of the revenue over the last 10 years, you have to at least acknowledge the successful parts of his tenure. (Although the players will take the credit for the growth, and when things decline, it is all Bettman's fault.)
What do we mean bt Growth, the fact that we have 30 teams now. I dont think that is nessisarily good. I think the product is way to watered down.

I dont blame him for everything, but he has done a lot to mess up the game and I think that some are forgeting that because it was on his watch that the owners decided to finaly try and put a check on their runaway spending.

Possibly the question should be was the on ice product better before he took over or now. I know my answer to that one.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:34 PM
  #14
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
The problem with Bettman is that he isn't a hockey man. His knowledge of the sport is nothing less that insulting to any fan of the game.

He was brought in because he was a "forward thinker" and that he would turn the NHL into a revenue generating machine. He's failed miserably at both. His forward thinking has brought back neutral zone trap hockey, his forward thinking has brought hockey to non-traditional markets where it is on the verge of collapse, and his forward thinking has brought on two lockouts at a time when hockey was either at it's peak interest (1994 - still annoys me because hockey was on the verge of becoming bigger than the NBA and we witnessed probably the best hockey in a long time after the Rangers - Canucks Stanley Cup final) or when they were getting ready to break though again (the Olympics was something the league should have marketed how the game should be - once again, they failed miserably to take advantage of that opportunity).

While Bettman generated revenue, he allowed owners to go nuts with regards to spending. As commissioner, he had the ability to veto or deny trades, free agent signings, etc.....he did nothing. He allowed things to get to this point. He can say all he wants with regards to opening negotiations with the NHLPA a few years ago, fact of the matter is that all the problems with sport erupted under his watch.

Hey, I don't blame the guy for the state that hockey is in. Owners and players deserve fault here as well because they really blew open how bad things were (or good, depending on what side you're on) and did nothing to try to correct things.

Bettman needs to go once a deal is in place. He should stay on board for legal advice and such, but he is not a commissioner. Personally, I've always thought that Ken Dryder or Bobby Orr would make great commissioners because they have something instantly that Bettman doesn't have - credibility. As well, being on both sides, they have an introspective look at the game that very few have.

I don't think you'd see Goodenow or Saskin lambaste either one of them as well. That's why I don't get why the NHL never used Gretzky or Lemieux in the negotiations until it was too late. If they would have used the two of them right from the word go, we could have probably gotten somewhere. Instead, we get Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leopold, and Jim Rutherford. Good choices there.......
Awesome post especially the first part.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:36 PM
  #15
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
A network TV deal is essential to the success of any league, give your head a shake if you don't think that it is needed for any league to gain credibility. If it was not needed why would they have signed the NBC one where there is no guarentee of money. Tell me how are us supose to break through when no one can see the product ? The NHL problems in the United States date back to the Original Six when Campbell declined a CBS contract that would have given them advertising on Sunday Football then they would have been given that time slot after the NFL season was done.
Sure a TV deal is needed but the last TV deal the league was offered during his watch was a joke was it not. Doesnt the Great Bettman deserve some blame for this. As far as the TV deal that you mention during the Original 6 I cannot comment on that because I was a little kid.

I know that the NHL still has tons of work to do in its growth in the states, but like Another poster said after the 94 finals this league was poised to make a breakthrough and from that point until now doesnt Bettman deserve some of the blame for the decline.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:38 PM
  #16
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
The problem with Bettman is that he isn't a hockey man. His knowledge of the sport is nothing less that insulting to any fan of the game.
Some things he did with the traditions of the game are a disgrace. The old conference names were eliminated, teams that finished first could no longer raise a banner? Subtle things that made hockey standout to it's fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
He was brought in because he was a "forward thinker" and that he would turn the NHL into a revenue generating machine. He's failed miserably at both. His forward thinking has brought back neutral zone trap hockey, his forward thinking has brought hockey to non-traditional markets where it is on the verge of collapse,
It's not Bettman's fault body and equipment technology caught up with the size of NHL rinks on his watch which is the major problem on the ice. It's also not Bettman's fault the majority of avg European players are simply not maketable as hard as they try to be. His expansion into Dallas, Colorado, Columbus and Minnesota have been positive for the league while others are a work in progress that will likely depend on the competitive financial balance that comes out of this cba which those teams have been hampered with from day one as they built from expansion status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
While Bettman generated revenue, he allowed owners to go nuts with regards to spending. As commissioner, he had the ability to veto or deny trades, free agent signings, etc.....he did nothing. He allowed things to get to this point. He can say all he wants with regards to opening negotiations with the NHLPA a few years ago, fact of the matter is that all the problems with sport erupted under his watch.
How did he allow the owners to go nuts with regards to spending? There was a work-stoppage and Bettman had to do what a bunch of short-sighted owners told him to do at that time. Most of them are now gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
Bettman needs to go once a deal is in place. He should stay on board for legal advice and such, but he is not a commissioner. Personally, I've always thought that Ken Dryder or Bobby Orr would make great commissioners because they have something instantly that Bettman doesn't have - credibility. As well, being on both sides, they have an introspective look at the game that very few have.
Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Dryden. Plug any name you want in for Bettman. A business losing the revenue it's losing cannot negotiate a deal with someone not willing to share the risks. It's not about personality or who was the greatest player or what they did on the ice. It's about the health of a business that is failing. We would likely have less personality conflicts in the media but no deal still means no deal.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:41 PM
  #17
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
I think it is an amazing feat that I have a lesser opinion of Goodenow. I don't know how Bob managed it, but he did.
I dont thnk much of Goodenow either while the subject is out there. I think this pissing contest or whatever you want to call it between he and Bettman is one of the more absurd things in this whole deal.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 04:52 PM
  #18
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hold on there my first question is how was he responsible for bringing in the trap ? or did I miss rule 77.4A teams must employ the trap rule that he installed. You also sit there and grill him over the Olympics - well it was he who brought the NHL to the Olympics so obviously he realized the maginitute of having the best players in the world showcased on such a stage. I already know the next response - well he could change the rules to get rid of it. well can HE - no it has to be agreed up he does not have that power.
As commissioner of the league, he has power to make rule changes for the betterment of the game. He saw that the game was becoming a slow, dull, and boring game. What is Bettman's response? Let's do nothing about changing the rules or even enforcing the rules and letting the crap continue to roll downhill. As for the Olympics, great, he allowed players to participate in the Olympics. But if that's the case, why did he not create an advertising package using the Olympics as a prime example of what hockey could be? The Olympic hockey was the highest rated event. I thought I read something online (I'll have to check again) that said that the hockey ratings were the highest in history and were in the range of some of the highest rated tv shows. That is a marketing gold mine, yet it was dropped. As commissioner of the sport, it is his business to do whatever it takes to improve the sport and to improve the financial situation of the sport. He failed. No one will deny that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
I also like the fact that he can veto trades and such - what sense does that make ? Tell me in what other league does that happen, unless it is a gross detriment to the league. It is just dumb to say he should step in and meddle into these affairs.
Well, it makes all the sense in the world. For instance, there have been tons of trades made that were nothing more than salary dumps. As well, you can almost argue that some of the trades made have made some of the teams even worse intentionally for drafting purposes. For instance, I know Pittsburgh was having financial difficulties, but they gave Alexei Kovalev away for nothing. It was a salary dump. If Bettman wanted to, I'm sure he could have gotten the Rangers to thow in a top tiered prospect, but he didn't. It was a joke of a trade. As well, the Jagr trade was another joke. Everyone may have talked about how it was Washington's top three prospects, but c'mon, Pittsburgh could have gotten more for the reigning scoring champion and at the time, probably the best player in the game. Once again, another joke. Talk about integrity, this was a case where a franchise was totally ripped apart and received very little in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
I would also like to know how come no one brings up Goodenow in this, you talk about how all these problems have arised under Bettman but who was the PA head before Bob - Eagleson who was just a stooley for the oweners that is why there have been far fewer problems from the league perspective.
Obviously, you didn't read my post clearly because I do blame Goodenow as well. However, all what he did was expose the system that Bettman and other owners negotiated. That's the key here. This was a system that was negotiated by owners and that it was supposed to be a restrictive system. Guess what, a couple of teams, player agents, and union heads along the way found several loopholes in the agreement. Let's remember that it is Goodenow's job to represent the players, not the owners. That's Bettman's job. Once could argue that Goodenow only has to look out for the best interest of the players and if he feels he can find a deal that will benefit his players, he'll do it. I think as a union leader though, it's in his best interest to work with the owners, and for the most part, he's failed. Goodenow and his unit (including Linden and the boys) all need to be replaced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
Yes his thinking has been flawed in terms of his expansion of the footprint of the league and the reliance of Blockbuster, Disney, and any other outside company to promote the league but still to blame everything that is wrong with the NHL on him, especially those that he cannot control, is just stupid.
Well, I didn't blame everything wrong with the NHL on Bettman. However, do you not find it a coincedence that two work stoppages, escalating player salaries with revenues not matching, franchises going bankrupt or moving, and lower tv ratings have all come under Bettman's watch? That does say something quite loud and clear.


Last edited by FlyersFan10*: 05-02-2005 at 06:32 PM.
FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 05:59 PM
  #19
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Many hockey fans feel that Bettman is horrible simply because of the lockout. They would be perfectly happy if he caved-in to the NHLPA's demands and hockey resumes. However, if Bettman remains firm in his position, the NHL will be able gain economic stability, and the league will be around for a considerably longer time than if it does not get gain financial certainty in a new CBA. If Gary Bettman is able to accomplish this, he should be viewed positively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
What has he done with that TV deal though, nothing the games appeal has shrunk to the point where their last TV deal was going to be a joke. I think he got that deal because the league was onthe verge of breaking through in all of North America when he took over. Look where it is now. In a ten year period or so he has hurt the game a ton in my opinion.
The NHL didn't have a broadcast television deal in the U.S. since the end of the 1973-74 season. Bettman got the Fox deal, the 'current' NBC deal and the highway robbery ABC deal, which the network was foolish to pay as much as they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
People easily take shots at him, but if you look at the growth of the revenue over the last 10 years, you have to at least acknowledge the successful parts of his tenure. (Although the players will take the credit for the growth, and when things decline, it is all Bettman's fault.)
You are right on this. Also, the values of a majority of the clubs has gone up considerably during Bettman's time in his position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Some things he did with the traditions of the game are a disgrace. The old conference names were eliminated... Subtle things that made hockey standout to it's fans
The names of the old divisions and conferences weren't really that old. They were adopted for the 1974-75 season. That's not really that long ago.

David Puddy is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 06:36 PM
  #20
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Puddy
Many hockey fans feel that Bettman is horrible simply because of the lockout. They would be perfectly happy if he caved-in to the NHLPA's demands and hockey resumes. However, if Bettman remains firm in his position, the NHL will be able gain economic stability, and the league will be around for a considerably longer time than if it does not get gain financial certainty in a new CBA. If Gary Bettman is able to accomplish this, he should be viewed positively.

The NHL didn't have a broadcast television deal in the U.S. since the end of the 1973-74 season. Bettman got the Fox deal, the 'current' NBC deal and the highway robbery ABC deal, which the network was foolish to pay as much as they did.

You are right on this. Also, the values of a majority of the clubs has gone up considerably during Bettman's time in his position.

The names of the old divisions and conferences weren't really that old. They were adopted for the 1974-75 season. That's not really that long ago.
Why should Bettman be viewed positively simply because he was commisioner when the owners decided to fix the mess that they created. It isnt any miraculous thing that Bettman has done, the Owners just decided to put an end to it on his watch. I m glad they decided to put a stop to it but Bettman shouldnt be viewed different because of this.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 08:02 PM
  #21
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
grew revenue - but as a custodian of the game - pure failure

mr gib is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 09:04 PM
  #22
gr8haluschak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
Why should Bettman be viewed positively simply because he was commisioner when the owners decided to fix the mess that they created. It isnt any miraculous thing that Bettman has done, the Owners just decided to put an end to it on his watch. I m glad they decided to put a stop to it but Bettman shouldnt be viewed different because of this.
Hold on there then by your reasoning why should Bettman be viewed in a negative light because it was the owners who created this mess during his tenure.

gr8haluschak is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 05:18 PM
  #23
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8haluschak
Hold on there then by your reasoning why should Bettman be viewed in a negative light because it was the owners who created this mess during his tenure.
I dont only view the rising salaries as the reasons for him being a failiure. I believe that the game was in a great position to make a huge leap in popularity in the states when he took over and it has done the opposite. He has overexpanded by a ton and he and his people have done an absolutely horrible job of marketing this great game.

c-carp is offline  
Old
05-03-2005, 08:50 PM
  #24
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,247
vCash: 500
I think far too many people are placing the results of the previous CBA in the lap of Bettman and how he has done on the job. If you mention anything about the previous CBA, like allowing the inflation of salaries, then you are not talking about the commissioner, you are talking about the CBA. The CBA in which Bettman opposed signing, but was instructed by ownership to complete. Keep in mind that Bettman is just the owners rep much like Goodenow is the player rep.

You can certainly slam Bettman for the over-exposure in the market, perhaps expanding in the wrong areas, but once again keep in mind that the owners were more than happy to collect the expansion fee's for these teams and how many owners suggested Anaheim is not a good hockey market?

Once again, the rules and logistics of the league are not soley Bettman's result either. It's not as if Bettman is just a dictator changing the rules of the game, the division names, etc. There have always been boards of governors that made many of the decisions that people are complaining about.

Back again to Bettman being the owners rep, I think you have to assess his job based on what he has done for the owners, who are his true clients. The league has expanded in exposure, providing expansion fees for the owners. The league has increased revenue streams from 10 years ago, 2004 projections were $2 billion, I know they could not have been at that level in 1994. Bettman negotiated television contracts, at times that were above market value, and has also had to deal with the low market values of today. If I'm an owner, I'm a happy man, and Bettman is keeping his job.

Of course, this current CBA is very pivotable, because Bettman has to please different perspectives, taking what control they have given him to do so. This is where Bettman ends up sticking his neck out on the line, and if he doesn't deliver, it wouldn't take much for ownership to lose faith in him.

Guest is offline  
Old
05-04-2005, 02:51 PM
  #25
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Converse
I think far too many people are placing the results of the previous CBA in the lap of Bettman and how he has done on the job. If you mention anything about the previous CBA, like allowing the inflation of salaries, then you are not talking about the commissioner, you are talking about the CBA. The CBA in which Bettman opposed signing, but was instructed by ownership to complete. Keep in mind that Bettman is just the owners rep much like Goodenow is the player rep.

You can certainly slam Bettman for the over-exposure in the market, perhaps expanding in the wrong areas, but once again keep in mind that the owners were more than happy to collect the expansion fee's for these teams and how many owners suggested Anaheim is not a good hockey market?

Once again, the rules and logistics of the league are not soley Bettman's result either. It's not as if Bettman is just a dictator changing the rules of the game, the division names, etc. There have always been boards of governors that made many of the decisions that people are complaining about.

Back again to Bettman being the owners rep, I think you have to assess his job based on what he has done for the owners, who are his true clients. The league has expanded in exposure, providing expansion fees for the owners. The league has increased revenue streams from 10 years ago, 2004 projections were $2 billion, I know they could not have been at that level in 1994. Bettman negotiated television contracts, at times that were above market value, and has also had to deal with the low market values of today. If I'm an owner, I'm a happy man, and Bettman is keeping his job.

Of course, this current CBA is very pivotable, because Bettman has to please different perspectives, taking what control they have given him to do so. This is where Bettman ends up sticking his neck out on the line, and if he doesn't deliver, it wouldn't take much for ownership to lose faith in him.

Your points about how you would feel about Bettman as an owner are well taken, as I read your explanations. One question though, as a hockey fan how do you feel about him and what he has done during his tenure.

c-carp is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:07 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.