HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Bettman: Yeah or Nay?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2008, 01:27 PM
  #76
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntOilFan View Post
If it comes out that Bettman OK'd a shady business deal to prevent a team from moving to Canada, by all means he should be replaced.
My boss comes to tell me to get something done all of the time.

And he doesnt tend to fire me for getting it done.

Anyways its hard to tell how this will affect Garys tenure. Thats something the owners have to worry about.

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 01:29 PM
  #77
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntOilFan View Post
If it comes out that Bettman OK'd a shady business deal to prevent a team from moving to Canada, by all means he should be replaced.
If it comes out? It's out there. Bettman gave Del Baggio the green light to move the Preds to Kansas City in three years. Why was that OK, but it wasn't OK for Balsillie to move the team to Hamilton?

Moreover, why wasn't proper due diligence done in that deal, yet the Katz deal was closely looked at by the same people? There are still people out there that don't know that the owners of the Sharks and Wild lent money to Del Baggio for this venture with Bettman's blessing. Why was a snake oil salesman allowed to take on serious debt to purchase the team, while a billionaire was rejected?

I think it's pretty transparent.

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:18 PM
  #78
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
While Bettman has done some good things, it's becoming apparent that his office has been lying and twisting facts to the owners for some time now. The proof is in Del Baggio's power point presentation to prospective investors.

Give it a couple of weeks. The owners of the Sharks and Wild are already furious about being duped by Del Baggio and Bettman's office. There are other owners who will soon be coming out (don't be surprised if Katz is one of them), once the facts into the Nashville fiasco come to light. Bank on it.
You realize that Del Baggio was in because of relationships with guys like Anschutz (LA, not San Jose) and Leipold (Minnesota), who lent him the money, that he got involved with this in the first place right?

How the hell can they be furious with Bettman when they are the ones who brought him in and fronted him the money to buy the team?

Quote:
This is the beginning of the end for your man Bettman.
My man Bettman? Hardly. If anything, we should be looking at the NHL board of governors for the mess that they currently find themselves in.

Bettman's just a scape goat for the mouth breathers.

Quote:
All you need to do is read this to show how dirty Bettman's office is - and how far he will go to advance his agenda:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....807130395/1028
Neither Bettman nor anyone in his office is even mentioned in this article. All this describes is that Del Baggio was only interested in gaining hold of an NHL franchise and that he put together a misleading powerpoint presentation to potential investors. I am struggling to figure out how you are pinning this on Bettman. It's not like Gary wrote this.

Quote:
There's also this gem from Brunt about the Bettman era being a total failure:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/s...rtsHockey/home
You really want to bring a Stephen Brunt article into the equation? Let's take a look at his points (and I use that term loosely).

1. 31% of league revenues come from the 6 Canadian teams. So in other words, 31% comes from 20% of the teams. Is that at all out of proportion to other leagues? In the NBA, NFL and MLB you can find a handful of teams that make more than their fair share of revenues. You can also find several teams who make significantly less.

2. The ESPN / VERSUS television deal. Let's not forget that ESPN had no interest in doing another deal with the NHL. In fact, games were routinely being relegated to ESPN2, which had a significantly smaller subscription rate than both ESPN and Versus. I'd say any TV deal is better than no TV deal at all. ESPN wasn't getting the ratings to justify putting hockey on the main network.

3. The cancelled season has nothing to do with Bettman. The owners wanted the cap and were willing to sacrifice a season to get it. Bettman just got them the deal that they wanted.

4. Expansion and Re-location. Let's not forget why the NHL wanted Bettman in the first place. The NHL wanted to increase it's stake in North America. You'd have to be blind to think they haven't done that. Not all of the markets are successful yet (then again, aside from the NFL none of the other league has managed to find a fix for this), but the league on the whole is increasing it's revenues on a yearly basis (ahead of the rate of inflation).

As for re-location... is Stephen Brunt stupid enough to believe that Winnipeg could have lasted until the lockout? What would they have done when the dollar fell belowe $0.60 USD? As much as Phoenix has lost, Winnipeg would have been in infinitely more trouble had they stayed. The NHL has been propping up franchises for years, specifically Edmonton... this is not something specific to Phoenix.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:21 PM
  #79
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
If it comes out? It's out there. Bettman gave Del Baggio the green light to move the Preds to Kansas City in three years. Why was that OK, but it wasn't OK for Balsillie to move the team to Hamilton?
Del Baggio had the green light if certain conditions were met in terms of things like revenues and ticket sales. Balsille would have had the same options, but his intent was to move the team regardless.

Balsille had no intentions of keeping the team in Nashville and said as much. Had he been a little more diplomatic, he probably would have gotten the franchise. Instead, he had the team moved before even owning it. I'm not suprised the NHL (and the owners) were not in favour of this.

Quote:
Moreover, why wasn't proper due diligence done in that deal, yet the Katz deal was closely looked at by the same people? There are still people out there that don't know that the owners of the Sharks and Wild lent money to Del Baggio for this venture with Bettman's blessing. Why was a snake oil salesman allowed to take on serious debt to purchase the team, while a billionaire was rejected?

I think it's pretty transparent.
I don't think the Katz sale was difficult at all. In fact, by all accounts it was simply a formality from the day the EIG decided to sell. There was never any sort of deep investigation involved.

dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:38 PM
  #80
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
dawgbone - you're a Bettman apologist. Admit it. I guess he's done nothing wrong in your eyes.

Bettman LIED to the BOG. Fact. And it was the Sharks ownership that lent Del Baggio money along with Leipold , not LA (get your facts straight) - it was mentioned numerous times on Friday's Total Sports. All of this was done with the encouragement of Bettman.

Del Baggio is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.

IF there were these "certain conditions" why was Del Baggio giving presentations saying that the team would be moving in three years? HE had no intent on keeping the team in Nashville - the Powerpoint he was showing proves that. There was never a plan to keep the team in Nashville - that's why there's a lot of pissed off people.

In regards to the Katz deal, it was mentioned on Total Sports that it was more scrutinized than the Nashville sale.

You keep saying Bettman's just a scapegoat - that's laughable. It's his office that continues to lie to fans, the BOG, and everyone else. That's a fact.

Keep apologizing for the worst commissioner the NHL has ever had - it only hurts your credibility.

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:40 PM
  #81
rigger
Registered User
 
rigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jessica Alba's Dream
Country: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 8,951
vCash: 500
Okay, let break this down a little. I do want to say I appreciate your ability to keep it civil, many who run into opposing opinions on this board tend to take it personally and start throwing insults. Lets keep it this way. this is why I like this board, fair, respectful debate about real topics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
The game is better now then it ever has been.
So is everything else. It's the natural progression of the world. I know that sounds silly and childish but its true. Everything has gotten better, TV, Computers, hockey equipment, skates, ice...etc... the game naturally gets better due to coaching, technology and video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
The players are better, there is no watering down of talent.
Tell that to the fans of the game when it was 24 teams. they will argue the talent is watered down. The fact that some teams barely have a first line supports that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
More fans are going to the games and hockey is going global.
The NHL hasn't conquered the states, I really think they best target their home audience first, once they fail then change their home audience. That might be what they're doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
All in all the sport is expanding during Bettmans tenure.
At the sake of the quality of the game. Also the expansion has been rather unfruitful and has been draining funds for quite some time. Canadian ticket sales account for 31% of the leagues totals. If you include NY, Minnesota, Buffalo (thousands of cdn fans attend nightly) and detroit you're probably at 50% or more. The game sells where people can play. Take cricket to canada and see how it does for TV ratings. It's simply would fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
Is the average team better today then 6 years ago?
So are the coaches, sticks, pads, ice and skates. It's technology, equipment producers and coaches and GMs have more to do with the increase in quality then Gary Bettman does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
If you played a home and home with the median team from today and 5 years ago, today wins every time.
See above. And when you do this it would be good to see the inside deals like TV revenues, how much that has gone up vs inflation. Also the reffing, something directly governed by the NHL, how much has that changed. Im not sure but Im guessing the TV deals haven't really sky rocketed south of the boarder in the struggling areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
Roenick has stated? Roenick has stated his navel is really important too, but I dont tend to draw any conclusions from that. The hockey is alot better because the players are better accross the board. Just watch a game and count the errors from a game 5-7 years ago compared to today.
Lets just ignore Roenick as much as we can. For better or for worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
To grow any game you have to go where it doesnt exist.
To expand the game thats needed, to grow it is a different story. Winnipeg, QB City and Im sure another place or two in canada could support a team and grow the league to a large size with out losing money. Growth and expansion are different.

rigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:44 PM
  #82
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by rigger View Post
Lets just ignore Roenick as much as we can. For better or for worse.
I have to disagree with you there. Roenick often rubbed people the wrong way because he told the truth without sugar coating it.

I brought him up, because he was one of the only players who knew expansion was hurting the game and had the balls to say something about it.

I'm not a huge fan of Roenick's, but I do respect the guy for telling it like it is.

That's just me though.

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 02:46 PM
  #83
rigger
Registered User
 
rigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jessica Alba's Dream
Country: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 8,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
I have to disagree with you there. Roenick often rubbed people the wrong way because he told the truth without sugar coating it.

I brought him up, because he was one of the only players who knew expansion was hurting the game and had the balls to say something about it.

I'm not a huge fan of Roenick's, but I do respect the guy for telling it like it is.

That's just me though.
This is true.

rigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:05 PM
  #84
karnige
Real Life FTL
 
karnige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 11,632
vCash: 500
agree with the cap but the expansion to obviously poor markets, tv contracts, etc... ugh

karnige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:13 PM
  #85
cfrancis
Registered User
 
cfrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,305
vCash: 5380
Send a message via AIM to cfrancis
Bettman is only a puppet of the BOG. If you want to blame anyone for the current state of affairs it's the BOG. Bettman really can't do much in terms of expansion/sale of teams/relocation of teams without the BOG.

As for the TV deal, Bettman took what was on the table. With ratings continuing to rise, the next TV deal should be a better stick to measure him with.

I am by no means a Bettman supporter but if you look at the conditions that were in place with each of the business deals, you can easily see the philosophy behind each decision and it's hard to go against any of them.

cfrancis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:26 PM
  #86
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
dawgbone - you're a Bettman apologist. Admit it. I guess he's done nothing wrong in your eyes.
Yup, pretty typical comment here. Can't say I'm suprised to see the apologist/father/brother/lover angle brought out here.

Quote:
Bettman LIED to the BOG. Fact. And it was the Sharks ownership that lent Del Baggio money along with Leipold , not LA (get your facts straight) - it was mentioned numerous times on Friday's Total Sports. All of this was done with the encouragement of Bettman.
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/447764

My facts are straight.

Anschutz and Leipold fronted Del Baggio the money and knew of his intents, specifically Anschutz, who coincidentally owns the arena in KC.

Quote:
Del Baggio is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.

IF there were these "certain conditions" why was Del Baggio giving presentations saying that the team would be moving in three years? HE had no intent on keeping the team in Nashville - the Powerpoint he was showing proves that. There was never a plan to keep the team in Nashville - that's why there's a lot of pissed off people.
Read what I wrote. Del Baggio had certain conditions that allowed him to move the team after 3 years. Whether he sold a bill of goods to potential investors is not the point (in terms of Balsille vs Del Baggio).

The point was, Del Baggio made the agreement with the NHL as a condition of the sale. Balsille would not make such an agreement and in fact did the exact opposite. He was ready to move the team before he even acquired it. That is why Balsille was rejected. He told the NHL he had no intent of keeping the team in Nashville, where as Del Baggio (whether he intended to follow through or not) told the NHL (as a condition of sale), that he would give the Predators at least 3 seasons.

I just don't see how you can relate this to Gary Bettman.

Quote:
In regards to the Katz deal, it was mentioned on Total Sports that it was more scrutinized than the Nashville sale.
Based on what information? Aside from sideshow Bob, is there anything out there that indicates that the Katz deal was ever a question?

Not a single report out there talks about how there was any danger of the sale not being completed. Not from the EIG, not from Katz... no one. There was never any danger and never any wording other than it was merely a formality to wait for the BOG (much like other recent sales like Tampa, Anaheim, etc...)

Quote:
You keep saying Bettman's just a scapegoat - that's laughable. It's his office that continues to lie to fans, the BOG, and everyone else. That's a fact.
The only thing laughable is the **** you toss around as facts. You keep throwing the word around in multiple posts without a damn thing to back them up.

What has he lied to the BOG about? Lying entails that he knew of wrong doing and intentionally mislead them about it. What specifically did he lie about?

Quote:
Keep apologizing for the worst commissioner the NHL has ever had - it only hurts your credibility.
Considering he's the only commissioner the NHL has ever had, he'd obviously be both the best and worst.

Let's look at what the NHL has done with it's worst commissioner ever:

- Increased revenues from $400 mil/season to $2.2 bil/season.

- Got it's first national TV agreement in 20 years.

- Worked out deals to increase the number of televised games from 50% to 98%

- Increased the NHL's international exposure by working out an agreement to let NHL players in the Olympics (despite it not having the same luxury of it being in the offseason like in basketball).

- There are more kids playing hockey in non-tradtional US markets now than there were kids playing hockey in traditional US markets before he took over.

Mike Barnett:

Quote:
Since Mr. Bettman's arrival there is one undeniable fact and that is this, clearly there are more youngsters taking up our game at an early age throughout North America, and particularly in the Sun Belt states of the U.S., than ever before. Many follow the NHL closely and are chasing that dream. We have more and better coaches teaching the game across the USA. This can only enhance the talent pool from which we draw at the NHL level. With the likes of Florida, Texas, and California now firmly established as hockey states, the NHL's footprint is truly coast-to-coast. It's a national--not regional--major sports league.
Funny thing... I don't attribute all of these things to Bettman. This is just what has happened since he's been around. Much like all the negatives aren't attributed to Bettman, they just happened when he was around.

dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:29 PM
  #87
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfrancis View Post
Bettman is only a puppet of the BOG. If you want to blame anyone for the current state of affairs it's the BOG. Bettman really can't do much in terms of expansion/sale of teams/relocation of teams without the BOG.

As for the TV deal, Bettman took what was on the table. With ratings continuing to rise, the next TV deal should be a better stick to measure him with.

I am by no means a Bettman supporter but if you look at the conditions that were in place with each of the business deals, you can easily see the philosophy behind each decision and it's hard to go against any of them.
Bettman's office also advises the BOG - so he's not just a puppet. He went to the BOG and endorsed a buyer without doing the proper due diligence - his office lied to the BOG and they went ahead and approved the sale not knowing Bettman had a side deal with Del Baggio.

Are the BOG responsible for some things, sure. But many of their decisions were based on Bettman's input and lies.

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:33 PM
  #88
cfrancis
Registered User
 
cfrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,305
vCash: 5380
Send a message via AIM to cfrancis
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
Bettman's office also advises the BOG - so he's not just a puppet. He went to the BOG and endorsed a buyer without doing the proper due diligence - his office lied to the BOG and they went ahead and approved the sale not knowing Bettman had a side deal with Del Baggio.

Are the BOG responsible for some things, sure. But many of their decisions were based on Bettman's input and lies.
If you think the BOG acts only on Bettman's advice you are as short sighted as the BOG.

cfrancis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:41 PM
  #89
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,051
vCash: 500
In the interview Dan Tencer had with Patrick Laforge last week, Laforge commented on the different degrees of scrutiny between Katz and Del Baggio being due in large part because of a single owner versus a minority member of a partnership.

I wonder what changes will come to the process as a result of what happened.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 03:55 PM
  #90
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
I don't think the Katz sale was difficult at all. In fact, by all accounts it was simply a formality from the day the EIG decided to sell. There was never any sort of deep investigation involved.
For alot of what you're saying, I agree with your take Dawgbone.

However for this part I would say that last week on McGowan's (sp) show they were talking a fair bit about this and said that when Katz was up for review they turned over every rock they could find to ensure that his finances were legit.

Otherwise, I agree that most of the allegations towards Bettman are misplaced because he only works for the owners he doesn't set policy.

This Boots thing though will likely cost him his position (perhaps in part rightly so and in part as a scape goat) because he was obligated (without specific instruction) to ensure the guy was on the level. This would be a standard mandate or bylaw for the league and not a sliding scale of scrutiny to be imposed depending on teh mood of the remaining owners. Something that obviously didn't happen. You would also have to assume that he was obligated to report that Anschutz and Leipold had fronted the money (two other guys that have some explaining to do) to the rest of the owners because that practice is apparently clearly defined as against league bylaws.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 04:17 PM
  #91
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
I have to disagree with you there. Roenick often rubbed people the wrong way because he told the truth without sugar coating it.

I brought him up, because he was one of the only players who knew expansion was hurting the game and had the balls to say something about it.

I'm not a huge fan of Roenick's, but I do respect the guy for telling it like it is.

That's just me though.
One quibble, he tells it like he sees it.

Thats substantially different then , "like it is".

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 04:19 PM
  #92
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcarnegie View Post
agree with the cap but the expansion to obviously poor markets, tv contracts, etc... ugh
Remember those expansion teams wernt given away for free.

Somebody invested alot of money in them.

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 04:23 PM
  #93
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/447764

My facts are straight.

Anschutz and Leipold fronted Del Baggio the money and knew of his intents, specifically Anschutz, who coincidentally owns the arena in KC.
You're right about Anshutz and Leipold lending Del Baggio the money. But the San Jose ownership did too according to Bob - if he was wrong, I apologize for using him as a source. Either way, the fact remains that they lent this ********* money and Bettman was more than willing to facilitate the sale. Bettman did little or no due diligence in checking out Del Baggio - that's a fact - so much so, Del Baggio was bragging about it. The worst part is Bettman initially said he was unaware of all of this. From MYFO's open letter to Bettman:

Quote:
"... Apparently, MYFO’s favorite prospective owner Jim Balsillie was so goddamned repulsive to you and your owner cartel that Philip Anschutz (LA Kings Owner) and Craig Leipold (Now the owner of the Wild) lent “Boots” Del Baggio $17 million of the $25 million he put in to buy the Predators from….Craig Leipold. So, wait, Leipold lent this ********* money…to buy the team from himself? That’s how desperate he was to get rid of the team to someone that he liked? He was willing to take a bath on his own sale? All so Del Baggio could get such a sweetheart deal that he does better financially the worse the Predators do financially? If they bottom out, he can take sole ownership of the team and move it to Kansas City. If they thrive, he can give up his stake, make a bundle, and bolt to take the next expansion team that comes along. Plus, there’s a clause saying his money isn’t on the line when free agency comes along. So Del Biaggio essentially gets 27% of an NHL team for a grand total of 7 million dollars. I’ll get myself a footwear nickname if it means I can score that kind of deal. And, oh yeah, by the way, Del Baggio’s now under federal investigation and has declared bankruptcy. Good call, guys! This is the point in our letter where we remind you that you held this sale over the voters of Tennessee’s heads to approve a tax hike for the stadium, otherwise, you’d let Boots yank the team to Kansas City anyway.

"Now here’s the kicker…you claim you didn’t know this fraternity-style circle-jerk was going on. I’ll repeat, again: HOW DO YOU LET THAT HAPPEN? You are the commissioner for a top-flight sports league in the most industrialized nation in the world. You are supposedly the most powerful man in your sport. Now, you claim that while owners are lending each other money to keep the franchises in their own little AllTel Circle of Friends, you thought everything was hunky dory?
The full letter can be found here:
http://meltyourfaceoff.net/2008/06/2...-gary-bettman/

Quote:
Read what I wrote. Del Baggio had certain conditions that allowed him to move the team after 3 years. Whether he sold a bill of goods to potential investors is not the point (in terms of Balsille vs Del Baggio).

The point was, Del Baggio made the agreement with the NHL as a condition of the sale. Balsille would not make such an agreement and in fact did the exact opposite. He was ready to move the team before he even acquired it. That is why Balsille was rejected. He told the NHL he had no intent of keeping the team in Nashville, where as Del Baggio (whether he intended to follow through or not) told the NHL (as a condition of sale), that he would give the Predators at least 3 seasons.
While he agreed to those conditions, he had no intentions of keeping the team there - period. So what's the difference between him and Balsillie - other than the fact one guy can outright purchase the team while the other has to borrow money? Del Baggio could do better financially the worse the Predators do financially - there's something seriously flawed there.

Quote:
I just don't see how you can relate this to Gary Bettman.
How about this nugget:

Quote:
Bergeron said Del Biaggio told him in December that National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman's office had given special permission for Del Biaggio to buy a share of the team without being subjected to all the scrutiny the league usually gives to prospective owners. Del Biaggio told him the commissioner's office did not require him to show audited financial statements before it approved him.

"Boots bragged to me that he was able to convince Bettman's office to overlook the need for his audited financial statements because it was too much work," Bergeron said.
That's the smoking gun right there.

Quote:
Based on what information? Aside from sideshow Bob, is there anything out there that indicates that the Katz deal was ever a question?

Not a single report out there talks about how there was any danger of the sale not being completed. Not from the EIG, not from Katz... no one. There was never any danger and never any wording other than it was merely a formality to wait for the BOG (much like other recent sales like Tampa, Anaheim, etc...)
I never said it was in jeopardy, only that it was scrutinized much more than the Nashville deal.

Quote:
The only thing laughable is the **** you toss around as facts. You keep throwing the word around in multiple posts without a damn thing to back them up.
I just did.

Quote:
What has he lied to the BOG about? Lying entails that he knew of wrong doing and intentionally mislead them about it. What specifically did he lie about?
Boots ****ing Del Baggio. Everyone knows he lied about the whole thing. Everyone. How about the numerous lies contained in this one interview:



Quote:
Considering he's the only commissioner the NHL has ever had, he'd obviously be both the best and worst.
Yes, I know he's the first "commissioner" - semantics. He's done more harm to the game than good. That was my point.

Quote:
Let's look at what the NHL has done with it's worst commissioner ever:

- Increased revenues from $400 mil/season to $2.2 bil/season.

CBC has it at 1.6 billion. No argument here - it's what BOG's mandate for him was.

- Got it's first national TV agreement in 20 years.

That's some sweet TV deal... right.

- Worked out deals to increase the number of televised games from 50% to 98%

It's easy to do that when you're giving the networks sweetheart deals. Not to mention, there's more networks now then there was before. The fact remains, he hasn't secured a lucrative deal like the other major sports. Hell, poker has a better TV deal.


- Increased the NHL's international exposure by working out an agreement to let NHL players in the Olympics (despite it not having the same luxury of it being in the offseason like in basketball).

Increased exposure where? And by all accounts, 2010 will be the last time they do this because it's been seen by many as a failure.

- There are more kids playing hockey in non-tradtional US markets now than there were kids playing hockey in traditional US markets before he took over.

Well it's easy to say that, but when you look at the facts, many of these 'markets' only have a couple of rinks. How many kids are playing now that weren't before? 500? Wow, what progress.
Quote:
Funny thing... I don't attribute all of these things to Bettman. This is just what has happened since he's been around. Much like all the negatives aren't attributed to Bettman, they just happened when he was around.
You're still basically saying that Bettman's done no wrong. I say he has done plenty wrong.

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree on Bettman. He's a control freak who cares more about money than the game.


Last edited by 420ilerBuzz*: 07-21-2008 at 04:49 PM.
420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 04:26 PM
  #94
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfrancis View Post
If you think the BOG acts only on Bettman's advice you are as short sighted as the BOG.
I don't, but they are influenced by what he says. Rich Winter has called him "one of the most powerful men in the NHL".

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 06:56 PM
  #95
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
You're right about Anshutz and Leipold lending Del Baggio the money. But the San Jose ownership did too according to Bob - if he was wrong, I apologize for using him as a source. Either way, the fact remains that they lent this ********* money and Bettman was more than willing to facilitate the sale. Bettman did little or no due diligence in checking out Del Baggio - that's a fact - so much so, Del Baggio was bragging about it. The worst part is Bettman initially said he was unaware of all of this. From MYFO's open letter to Bettman:

The full letter can be found here:
http://meltyourfaceoff.net/2008/06/2...-gary-bettman/
Who in the **** is MYFO and why should I care? Is there a single question that he doesn't self answer with his own opinion there?

The NHL has denied the claim that they didn't perform due dilligence on Del Baggio, so I don't know how you can claim it as a fact.

Quote:
While he agreed to those conditions, he had no intentions of keeping the team there - period. So what's the difference between him and Balsillie - other than the fact one guy can outright purchase the team while the other has to borrow money? Del Baggio could do better financially the worse the Predators do financially - there's something seriously flawed there.
The difference? Look no further than the news story you quote below:

Quote:
"As far as I can see, he was telling lies to people in California," Dean said. "Because the deal is structured in such a way that they can't move the team for five years without penalties and paybacks to us and everything else.

"It's not a good thing for him to have done that, but again, I think the city was protected by the agreements, and I'm assuming the local owners felt they were protected by their agreements."
Meaning that such an agreement was conditioned on Del Baggio prior to purchasing, which is why he was favoured over Balsille.

Quote:
How about this nugget:

That's the smoking gun right there.
Which is countered by this nugget:

Quote:
"With respect to Mr. Del Biaggio's apparent claim that the League waived certain of our standard financial background checks, we do not believe that to be the case," Daly's e-mail said. "Due diligence on Mr. Del Biaggio's ownership application was treated in a consistent manner as with the applications of other prospective owners."
So now we've got the word of someone who has lied to numerous investors who is saying one thing, and the NHL saying something different.

Colour me strange, but I have little faith in anything that Del Baggio says right now.

Quote:
I never said it was in jeopardy, only that it was scrutinized much more than the Nashville deal.
In what way though? What was the process for both? Was the Katz sale scrutinized more than say the Melnyk sale was?

Was the Del Baggio sale scrutinized any less than some of the other group ownership changes?

Quote:
Boots ****ing Del Baggio. Everyone knows he lied about the whole thing. Everyone. How about the numerous lies contained in this one interview:
[/quote]

Pretend I'm slow (or don't pretend, just recognize I am slow).

What did Bettman lie about in regards to Del Baggio?

What were the numerous lies in that video?

Quote:
That's some sweet TV deal... right.
Compared to the one they had in 1992, it's a significantly better deal, considering such a deal did not exist. The NHL did not have a national TV deal in the states.

Quote:
It's easy to do that when you're giving the networks sweetheart deals. Not to mention, there's more networks now then there was before. The fact remains, he hasn't secured a lucrative deal like the other major sports. Hell, poker has a better TV deal.
At least they are on TV. They went from being an obscure sport with little TV viewership to an obscure sport with marginal TV viewership.

You won't secure a lucrative TV deal without ratings. It's as simple as that. Why in the hell do you think ESPN OPTED out of the last deal? ESPN opted out because the ratings were **** because no one was watching the games. That is not Bettman's fault. The fact he got $600mil from ESPN in the first place was beyond everyone's expectations.

Unfortunately, it didn't result in viewers so ESPN didn't feel the value was there.

Quote:
Increased exposure where? And by all accounts, 2010 will be the last time they do this because it's been seen by many as a failure.
They are cancelling not because it's been a failure from an international standpoint, but because the owners don't like to stop their schedule for 2 weeks in the middle of the season.

They don't want to go 2 weeks later into the season. I'm not sure how you can view it as a failure when the last 3 gold medal games have been the most watched Winter Olympic events.

[quote]Well it's easy to say that, but when you look at the facts, many of these 'markets' only have a couple of rinks. How many kids are playing now that weren't before? 500? Wow, what progress. [/quote[

You might want to re-read that again. There are more kids playing hockey in what used to be non-traditional US hockey markets now, than there were kids playing hockey in tradtional US hockey markets 15 years ago.

In other words, there are more kids playing hockey in Texas, Florida and California now, than there were kids playing hockey in Minnesota, Massachusettes and New York in 1993.

Quote:
Yes, I know he's the first "commissioner" - semantics. He's done more harm to the game than good. That was my point.
Compared to other NHL presidents? You should probably look up what some of those crooks did.

And exactly what harm has he done?

The game is more accessible on TV than it ever was.

Revenues have grown substantially.

The game itself is played in more North American areas than ever thought possible 20 years ago.

What are the negatives?

Quote:
You're still basically saying that Bettman's done no wrong. I say he has done plenty wrong.

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree on Bettman. He's a control freak who cares more about money than the game.
So do the 30 owners he works for and the 700+ players they pay.

Funny how business people care about money.

dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 08:11 PM
  #96
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
Bettman's office also advises the BOG - so he's not just a puppet. He went to the BOG and endorsed a buyer without doing the proper due diligence - his office lied to the BOG and they went ahead and approved the sale not knowing Bettman had a side deal with Del Baggio.

Are the BOG responsible for some things, sure. But many of their decisions were based on Bettman's input and lies.
I'd like to know how you know what goes on in BOG meetings.

There's an entire forum of this board that would love to be plugged in like that.

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 08:14 PM
  #97
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section337 View Post
In the interview Dan Tencer had with Patrick Laforge last week, Laforge commented on the different degrees of scrutiny between Katz and Del Baggio being due in large part because of a single owner versus a minority member of a partnership.

I wonder what changes will come to the process as a result of what happened.
Boots was also already an owner, and would thus have already undergone whatever they do to minority owners.

There's a further possibility that the Boots situation was not as outrageous at the time of the sale as it may seem.

There's a poster in the Business of Hockey forum (gscarpenter) who has looked quite closely at the information available and has a reasonable argument that Boots likely got killed financially in the last 6 to 8 months, and hense the bankruptcy.

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 08:18 PM
  #98
420ilerBuzz*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Anger Managment Ward
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,780
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to 420ilerBuzz*
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
Who in the **** is MYFO and why should I care? Is there a single question that he doesn't self answer with his own opinion there?

The NHL has denied the claim that they didn't perform due dilligence on Del Baggio, so I don't know how you can claim it as a fact.
What do you expect them to say? Why would Del Baggio say that then? Why is Bettman hiding and not saying anything right now? He's been asked to answer some simple questions, yet he won't answer the media's calls.

Quote:
The difference? Look no further than the news story you quote below:

Meaning that such an agreement was conditioned on Del Baggio prior to purchasing, which is why he was favoured over Balsille.
So what's the difference? Moving the team in five years or one? Nothing, other than Bettman gets another few years to try and pull Nashville out of the crapper.



Quote:
Which is countered by this nugget:

So now we've got the word of someone who has lied to numerous investors who is saying one thing, and the NHL saying something different.
Yeah... Bill Daly. Gary Bettman's personal lap dog. Real shocker that he defends his Dictator...

Quote:
Colour me strange, but I have little faith in anything that Del Baggio says right now.
Yet you put blindly put faith in everything Bettman and his cronies say. I see how this works.

Quote:
In what way though? What was the process for both? Was the Katz sale scrutinized more than say the Melnyk sale was?

Was the Del Baggio sale scrutinized any less than some of the other group ownership changes?
Click here to find out more!

Bergeron said Del Biaggio told him in December that National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman's office had given special permission for Del Biaggio to buy a share of the team without being subjected to all the scrutiny the league usually gives to prospective owners. Del Biaggio told him the commissioner's office did not require him to show audited financial statements before it approved him.

Bettman himself told Bergeron that he helped arrange the agreement that Del Biaggio had with the Predators' local owners, Bergeron said.

I think the proof is in the pudding right there.

Quote:
Pretend I'm slow (or don't pretend, just recognize I am slow).

What did Bettman lie about in regards to Del Baggio?

What were the numerous lies in that video?
He stated that he knew nothing of Del Baggio's dealings, yet there's evidence to the contrary. There's evidence that he helped arrange everything Del Baggio was doing. Why would the NHL not advise the managing partner of what they were doing with Del Baggio? And I quote:
Quote:
Predators managing partner David Freeman said Wednesday he did not know of the dealings between Del Biaggio and the NHL.
Now to the lies he told in the interview with Ron MacLean:

He said the Canadian revenues were "a little disproportionate". The facts say otherwise.

Revenues are rising across the board - anyone who questions that is just looking for a headline. So let me get this straight - a reporter gets the figures, questions Bettman, and he's just looking for headlines? Please.

He says that Canadian teams only produce 20% of attendance. The facts say it's more like 31%. He tries to spin it that the Canadian dollar has a ton to do with that. Right.

He says something glaring - "We stick by situations to make them work." In other words, he won't admit to making mistakes. Ever.

When MacLean says, there's teams in trouble, Bettman responds,"You know, trouble's a funny thing..."

All of our clubs are in better shape than before the lockout. That's laughable. He goes on to say that all of the teams are improving - unreal.

Everybody's going to be fine - yeah.. OK Gary. Talk about turning a blind eye.

Claims that media suggested that there would only be ONE Canadian team in 1999/2000. I remember that number being at three, not one.

Basically says that Carolina's ownership is lying when they said they've lost one quarter of their revenue sharing money - why would they lie?

Bettman says that the league's revenue growth has nothing to do with the Canadian dollar. OK. What did he say earlier? Oh that's right, the Canadian dollar was a main reason for that...

Says that people have agendas and spread misinformation. These same people have gotten their "misinformation" directly from the NHL.

Bettman says he doesn't know about Del Baggio's fraud charge. That's funny, everyone knew about it the second it dropped.

Nobody in Nashville should worry about Del Baggio. Is this guy for real?

Says that Leipold shot down Balsillie and he had nothing to do in rejecting the deal. That's rich. Bettman was against the Balsillie deal the whole time.

Bettman then cuts MacLean off when Ron tries to press him on the TV deals. The guy can't admit failure. Ever.

Quote:
Compared to the one they had in 1992, it's a significantly better deal, considering such a deal did not exist. The NHL did not have a national TV deal in the states.
Yes it's better, but it needs to be addressed now. He can't keep letting it go for free.

Quote:
At least they are on TV. They went from being an obscure sport with little TV viewership to an obscure sport with marginal TV viewership.
Obscure in the States.

Quote:
You won't secure a lucrative TV deal without ratings. It's as simple as that. Why in the hell do you think ESPN OPTED out of the last deal? ESPN opted out because the ratings were **** because no one was watching the games. That is not Bettman's fault. The fact he got $600mil from ESPN in the first place was beyond everyone's expectations.

Unfortunately, it didn't result in viewers so ESPN didn't feel the value was there.
ESPN knew that TV in those markets would never be successful, because they weren't hockey markets to begin with. They cut their losses and walked.
Quote:
They are cancelling not because it's been a failure from an international standpoint, but because the owners don't like to stop their schedule for 2 weeks in the middle of the season.

They don't want to go 2 weeks later into the season. I'm not sure how you can view it as a failure when the last 3 gold medal games have been the most watched Winter Olympic events.
In Canada and Europe. It was barely watched in the States (where it needed to be seen), with the exception of the games in Salt Lake City.


Quote:
You might want to re-read that again. There are more kids playing hockey in what used to be non-traditional US hockey markets now, than there were kids playing hockey in tradtional US hockey markets 15 years ago.

In other words, there are more kids playing hockey in Texas, Florida and California now, than there were kids playing hockey in Minnesota, Massachusettes and New York in 1993.
I would like to see some concrete numbers. I'm not going on the word of a former agent.

Quote:
Compared to other NHL presidents? You should probably look up what some of those crooks did.
What did Ziegler do that was crooked? Eagleson was, but he was the head of the players' union. Who else was shady?

Quote:
And exactly what harm has he done?

The game is more accessible on TV than it ever was.

Revenues have grown substantially.

The game itself is played in more North American areas than ever thought possible 20 years ago.

What are the negatives?
There have been numerous negatives posted. I don't have the time to go over them again.

Quote:
So do the 30 owners he works for and the 700+ players they pay.

Funny how business people care about money.
They do, but there's some who care about the game more. Katz for example.

420ilerBuzz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 08:25 PM
  #99
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
You're right about Anshutz and Leipold lending Del Baggio the money. But the San Jose ownership did too according to Bob - if he was wrong, I apologize for using him as a source. Either way, the fact remains that they lent this ********* money and Bettman was more than willing to facilitate the sale. Bettman did little or no due diligence in checking out Del Baggio - that's a fact - so much so, Del Baggio was bragging about it. The worst part is Bettman initially said he was unaware of all of this. From MYFO's open letter to Bettman:
The MSM in Canada has been worse than terrible on this.

Nevermind getting their facts straight and then reporting, they have generally been jumping to conclusions and then trying to paper some incorrect facts on after the fact. I should say many of them have been, because I'm sure not all have. The ones who haven't been doing this likely haven't said much yet because it is too early to really know what happened.

Brunt and McCowan are among the worst offenders that I am aware of though, and they seem to have the gravitas to pull some others along with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 420ilerBuzz View Post
That's the smoking gun right there.
Hearsay is seldom considered evidence, let alone a 'smoking gun.'

My advice to any who want it would be to keep your powder dry. A lot more will be known nearer to or after Boots' court proceedings (bankruptcy and criminal).


Last edited by nye: 07-21-2008 at 08:30 PM.
nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2008, 08:30 PM
  #100
The Korean*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Korean* Send a message via Yahoo to The Korean*
I wanna hear some good reasons why Bettman should go.

Just keep in mind that:
'He didn't give Canada another team' is not a good reason.
Nor is 'He gave South new franchises' which is not true.

The Korean* 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 05:44 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.