• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
miller76

Bettman makes how much?

Rate this topic

55 posts in this topic

Marketing and cross promotion of the league could be improved, although I don't think that's a little petty. The TV ratings have been improving.

Now this one I really have a problem with, the league needs hockey to grow in those areas. Proven they can't survive? How is that at all "proven".

Phoenix will be success, they just need an owner that actually knows how to lead a franchise. It's hard to grow a franchise when you don't win. Don't punish the area for the short comings of the past ownership.

And ESPN just doesn't make sense yet, it was too expensive at the time. I see this changing soon though.

And the disciplinary rules definitely need refining, I'll agree that Bettman could put in some more suggestions then he currently is.

The person I think you are describing would be a disaster unless he has the ability to manage a multi billion dollar league, that is the single most important thing in professional sports.

Marketing is one of the biggest things to a sports league - look at the NFL, that should be number 1 on everyone's list of problem's with Bettman... this is what makes the league money, by making it a brand and having people talking about it year 'round.

Phoenix has now been a franchise for almost 14 years and has been hemorrhaging money since day 1, they have gone through 4 ownership groups in that time and are a league leading low in attendance almost yearly - If this isn't "proving" it to you, I don't know what will - they don't care about hockey there. period........ Dallas, Tampa Bay, Florida to some extent and Carolina more or less have all at least been viable businesses, but to argue that "Phoenix just hasn't been given a chance" is asinine and they need to know when to pull the plug and admit they're wrong (something else Bettman has proven incapable of from day one)

ESPN rights could have been GIVEN away, while still signing the deal with VS - Some major, national exposure is better than none... if they did not want to sign a deal with ESPN, why didn't they at least pursue at least another network which was in homes nationwide(TBS, TNT, etc...) for at least some supplementary exposure?

As for the person that doesn't exist... how about some guy named Ken Dryden? Yea, he covers all those requirements.

Edited by stevkrause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will do that job for 40k, free hockey games, and airplane tickets to get to where I need to be for the job. Then maybe the league would be viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix has now been a franchise for almost 14 years and has been hemorrhaging money since day 1, they have gone through 4 ownership groups in that time and are a league leading low in attendance almost yearly - If this isn't "proving" it to you, I don't know what will - they don't care about hockey there. period........ Dallas, Tampa Bay, Florida to some extent and Carolina more or less have all at least been viable businesses, but to argue that "Phoenix just hasn't been given a chance" is asinine and they need to know when to pull the plug and admit they're wrong (something else Bettman has proven incapable of from day one)

Did you not see the attendance numbers this year?

October 9,999

November 9,843

December 11,122

January 12,195

February 15,078

March 14,730

April 17,140

As you can see, there is a steady rise in attendance throughout the season. While the final average attendance was just 11,989 (ranking dead last in the NHL), the Coyotes post-Christmas attendance averaged 13,870, which was better than the Thrashers or the Islanders and within a hundred of the Avalanche. Is it right to completely discount the first half of the season? Of course not; but it is clear that once the Coyotes started winning, and more and more news came out about the ownership probably being resolved, fans started to come out to Glendale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not see the attendance numbers this year?

October 9,999

November 9,843

December 11,122

January 12,195

February 15,078

March 14,730

April 17,140

As you can see, there is a steady rise in attendance throughout the season. While the final average attendance was just 11,989 (ranking dead last in the NHL), the Coyotes post-Christmas attendance averaged 13,870, which was better than the Thrashers or the Islanders and within a hundred of the Avalanche. Is it right to completely discount the first half of the season? Of course not; but it is clear that once the Coyotes started winning, and more and more news came out about the ownership probably being resolved, fans started to come out to Glendale.

you're right, because 3mths of attendance, clearly is the constant and not the anomaly in a 14 year history of a franchise...

A healthy team draws regardless of winning... as soon as they started losing again, fans would stop showing up and QUICK... that is not a viable market.

EDIT - FYI, I was just going back through the numbers and they have consistently been in the bottom 5 in terms of attendance since their inception...

Edited by stevkrause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right, because 3mths of attendance, clearly is the constant and not the anomaly in a 14 year history of a franchise...

A healthy team draws regardless of winning... as soon as they started losing again, fans would stop showing up and QUICK... that is not a viable market.

EDIT - FYI, I was just going back through the numbers and they have consistently been in the bottom 5 in terms of attendance since their inception...

A healthy team is a team that has had a local fan base for a long time and has cemented itself within the households of the area.

Phoenix is a brand new market, and the team has been AWFUL all 14 years.

I can see you have no interest in growing and spreading this great game.

Everything isn't going to be perfect when you first start in non-traditional markets(Philadelphia, San Jose, Anaheim etc.), but fans are fickle. Chicago is a perfect example, they went from the bottom of attendance to the top all based on the teams performance.

Coyotes have been in the bottom half, but it's unfair to say they will never have a good fanbase when the fans have had barely anything to cheer about. The first time they've had a playoff caliber team the fans started to come. Let's see how they do from now on.

The advantages of having a successful franchise in Arizona far out-weigh the negatives of just marketing to fans that already love the game. You have to take risks to grow, and I feel the risk is definitely worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

downright disgusting - I don't care if he's "doing what the owners want", he's not even a hockey guy and is a disgrace to the game...

Just because the league is doing "ok" - doesn't mean it couldn't be doing great...

As I've said all along, Ken Dryden should be the commissioner.

Isn't Dryden a member of Parliment?....Maybe in a few years - if we could all be so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but still I think you are putting too much stock into what Bettman's job actually is. He's merely a puppet, you have to go after the BOG to actually change the rules of the game which I'm pretty sure is your issue with the current league correct? What are your actual concerns with the league currently?

Agreed - as much as I would like to see Gary Bettman removed - the reality is that many of the owners are happy with him.

What interests me most is what national tv deal will the NHL get after this upcoming season?..I get the impression it'll continue to be the NBC/VS combo since there hasn't been much talk as of late concerning another network wanting "in".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Murphy(notes), who manages the NHL's video review war room, makes much less but bridges the gap with bribes from the L.A. Kings. (That's just a joke, Vancouver. Put down the tin foil.)

Haha :lol:

Can't complain too much considering he is paid least out of all top 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A healthy team is a team that has had a local fan base for a long time and has cemented itself within the households of the area.

Phoenix is a brand new market, and the team has been AWFUL all 14 years.

I can see you have no interest in growing and spreading this great game.

Everything isn't going to be perfect when you first start in non-traditional markets(Philadelphia, San Jose, Anaheim etc.), but fans are fickle. Chicago is a perfect example, they went from the bottom of attendance to the top all based on the teams performance.

Coyotes have been in the bottom half, but it's unfair to say they will never have a good fanbase when the fans have had barely anything to cheer about. The first time they've had a playoff caliber team the fans started to come. Let's see how they do from now on.

The advantages of having a successful franchise in Arizona far out-weigh the negatives of just marketing to fans that already love the game. You have to take risks to grow, and I feel the risk is definitely worth it.

To even make the comment in bold is a joke - As I already said earlier, Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, etc... are all non-traditional markets and have been very viable and I am of the mindset that Nashville is one that deserves to have it's growing pains as well, but 14 years is not a "give it a chance" scenario, or a "young" team... they made the playoffs in the 01-02 season and followed that up with the 2nd worst attendance in the league the following season... they also made the playoffs in 99 and followed that up with the 4th worst attendance in the league the following season...

Expanding the game is ALSO about putting hockey where it can grow, not just "taking chances" and I would hardly say that qualifies in Phoenix... furthermore, to even state that the health of a team in Arizona would outweigh the negatives is downright laughable, as it is not even one of the more important markets in the US sports wise, let alone for the NHL...

Completely separate, HOW is Philadelphia a "non-traditional" hockey market?!??!?!?

Isn't Dryden a member of Parliment?....Maybe in a few years - if we could all be so lucky.

He is indeed... Bettman's contract is still for a few more years anyway though, isn't it? I would do cartwheels in the street if this happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To even make the comment in bold is a joke - As I already said earlier, Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, etc... are all non-traditional markets and have been very viable and I am of the mindset that Nashville is one that deserves to have it's growing pains as well, but 14 years is not a "give it a chance" scenario, or a "young" team... they made the playoffs in the 01-02 season and followed that up with the 2nd worst attendance in the league the following season... they also made the playoffs in 99 and followed that up with the 4th worst attendance in the league the following season...

Expanding the game is ALSO about putting hockey where it can grow, not just "taking chances" and I would hardly say that qualifies in Phoenix... furthermore, to even state that the health of a team in Arizona would outweigh the negatives is downright laughable, as it is not even one of the more important markets in the US sports wise, let alone for the NHL...

Completely separate, HOW is Philadelphia a "non-traditional" hockey market?!??!?!?

Yet they were 19th in attendance the year before the lock out?

The people are there, they just need something to cheer about. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the teams in the bottom of the attendance also are usually in the bottom of the standings?

Phoenix is a growing area, a lot of northern transplants that are just beginning to start their families. It would also help to actually have a stable owner that can market and gain sponsors.

And Philadelphia was highly detested when the team was first brought there too, but it grew because the team actually you know, won games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not surprised at all. i wish they could vote to get rid of this clown.

Shanny for comish please!!!!

Expected, but undeserved. With that being said, I think its safe to say Bettman's job is safe as long as there is increasing revenue. Believe it or not, most Owners of the league like what hes done so far.

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet they were 19th in attendance the year before the lock out?

The people are there, they just need something to cheer about. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the teams in the bottom of the attendance also are usually in the bottom of the standings?

Phoenix is a growing area, a lot of northern transplants that are just beginning to start their families. It would also help to actually have a stable owner that can market and gain sponsors.

And Philadelphia was highly detested when the team was first brought there too, but it grew because the team actually you know, won games.

The difference is, that teams that are bad for a LONG time, that start to have decreasing attendance (Islanders, Pittsburgh, Chicago) jump back and STAY strong as soon as they start to win again and it takes them 3 times as long of losing as it does of winning, for the numbers to drop again - But a team with in a weak market can win for a couple years, but as soon as they start to lose again, at all, they lose the fans just as quick as they obtained them when they were winning... and THAT is not viable to long term stability.

By the way, Phoenix's population just had one of it's first drops this year after remaining flat since 2007 and I've had several friends that moved out there, that have since moved elsewhere, or moved back here because the job market there had flattened out and the opportunities weren't there anymore... hardly a booming area...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoenix is a brand new market, and the team has been AWFUL all 14 years.

I wouldn't say all 14 years. First 4 seasons they made the playoffs but got knocked out in the 1st round by Red Wings, Avs, Blues, and Ducks. Besides the Ducks those were the top teams in the west during those days. Phoenix was never elite but decent...so getting off to a start like that they should of gotten more attention but didn't.

stevkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say all 14 years. First 4 seasons they made the playoffs but got knocked out in the 1st round by Red Wings, Avs, Blues, and Ducks. Besides the Ducks those were the top teams in the west during those days. Phoenix was never elite but decent...so getting off to a start like that they should of gotten more attention but didn't.

ding. ding. ding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt they GM's/Owners all just vote not to long ago ? and majority wanted him to stay, I agree Buttman is just business Chirelli would be a perfect Commish !

guy is a genious, seriously i think he is guy has a degree from Harvard graduated with honors a degree from university of Ottawa in Law. We need a guy that knows Hockey and the Business side of things.

bettman's only degree is in drama. next commissioner please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That little bastard should be paying us to keep his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoenix has never been great for attendance nor have they had great success.

But this season is only the third time in the Coyotes' 13-season history that the team has averaged below 13,500 in attendance. Sure, that's not a terribly high number compared to teams like the Wings, Rangers, Canadiens, or Leafs. But for comparison? The Jets played 17 NHL seasons and only averaged ABOVE 13,500 in attendance twice.

So overall, the franchise has played 30 NHL seasons, averaging above 13,500 in attendance 12 times. Ten of those times were after the team relocated to Phoenix. Before the 1979 merger, the Jets never cleared 9,500.

So the Coyotes have had significantly more success drawing fans. As far as success, the Jets made the playoffs eleven times in 17 seasons. The Coyotes have made the playoffs six times in 13 seasons. Total playoff record for the teams is Jets 19-42 (.311), Coyotes 13-24 (.351) so as you can see, the Coyotes have also been more successful in the postseason. The Jets' regular season winning percentage is .442, which is pretty terrible. The Coyotes, OTOH, come out at .485, if you factor all shootouts as ties, and take away the extra point for non-shootout OTLs.

They haven't had a great team, but they have still provided better support than Winnipeg. Canadians like to push the "Put a team anywhere in Canada and it will be sold out every night." line. The Jets never managed that. They probably would the first couple seasons if they got a team back, but who knows what happens after that? Ottawa? Winnipeg? Vancouver? Quebec? Montreal and Toronto, sure. They've been around for 100 years and have fan bases that have been passed down through generations. The Nucks, Sens, Jets, and Nords aren't/weren't even as old as a large number, if not majority when the Nords and Jets moved, of fans of the Leafs and Habs. The Sens haven't even been around as long as 75-80% or more of Leafs or Habs fans.

And I will say it again: relocating a team is not Bettman saying "You know what, let's take this team and move it." It is the owner of the team deciding to move the team to another location. This is usually the result of a sale. The Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were sold because they were hemorrhaging money worse than the Coyotes are. The new owners already had destinations in mind, and because they followed the proper procedures for purchasing and relocating a team, there were no problems with the sales or the relocating. Expansion is a similar process. Bettman does not decide "Let's place teams in these cities" but rather the league decides to expand by a number of teams, and seeks bidders for those teams. They decide based on financial stability of the market and the bidder, proximity to other markets, and how well the bidder would serve the BoG, among other things.

Of course then there is the unusual situation which happened in 1991. The Gund brothers had owned the California Seals, which eventually moved to Cleveland. The Cleveland franchise was failing financially, as were the North Stars, due to both teams having little on-ice success. As the North Stars were put up for sale, the league allowed the Gunds to purchase the North Stars and merge the two clubs in 1979, forming a much deeper and more successful franchise, which would reach the Finals in 1981.

In 1991, a group led by Howard Baldwin was seeking an expansion franchise in the Bay Area. After again suffering financial difficulty, the Gunds asked the league for permission to transfer the team to the Bay Area. The league sought a compromise; the Gunds would receive the Bay Area expansion team, in exchange for selling the Stars to Baldwin's group, which in the final moments of the negotiations would see a 51% majority share bought out by Norm Green. A dispersal draft between the two clubs was held, followed by an expansion draft in which both teams would select players from other teams around the league to fill out their rosters. To my knowledge, this is the only situation of this sort where two teams merged and then split apart again; as the Sharks are basically the successors to the California Seals.

/random rambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoenix has never been great for attendance nor have they had great success.

But this season is only the third time in the Coyotes' 13-season history that the team has averaged below 13,500 in attendance. Sure, that's not a terribly high number compared to teams like the Wings, Rangers, Canadiens, or Leafs. But for comparison? The Jets played 17 NHL seasons and only averaged ABOVE 13,500 in attendance twice.

So overall, the franchise has played 30 NHL seasons, averaging above 13,500 in attendance 12 times. Ten of those times were after the team relocated to Phoenix. Before the 1979 merger, the Jets never cleared 9,500.

So the Coyotes have had significantly more success drawing fans. As far as success, the Jets made the playoffs eleven times in 17 seasons. The Coyotes have made the playoffs six times in 13 seasons. Total playoff record for the teams is Jets 19-42 (.311), Coyotes 13-24 (.351) so as you can see, the Coyotes have also been more successful in the postseason. The Jets' regular season winning percentage is .442, which is pretty terrible. The Coyotes, OTOH, come out at .485, if you factor all shootouts as ties, and take away the extra point for non-shootout OTLs.

They haven't had a great team, but they have still provided better support than Winnipeg. Canadians like to push the "Put a team anywhere in Canada and it will be sold out every night." line. The Jets never managed that. They probably would the first couple seasons if they got a team back, but who knows what happens after that? Ottawa? Winnipeg? Vancouver? Quebec? Montreal and Toronto, sure. They've been around for 100 years and have fan bases that have been passed down through generations. The Nucks, Sens, Jets, and Nords aren't/weren't even as old as a large number, if not majority when the Nords and Jets moved, of fans of the Leafs and Habs. The Sens haven't even been around as long as 75-80% or more of Leafs or Habs fans.

And I will say it again: relocating a team is not Bettman saying "You know what, let's take this team and move it." It is the owner of the team deciding to move the team to another location. This is usually the result of a sale. The Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were sold because they were hemorrhaging money worse than the Coyotes are. The new owners already had destinations in mind, and because they followed the proper procedures for purchasing and relocating a team, there were no problems with the sales or the relocating. Expansion is a similar process. Bettman does not decide "Let's place teams in these cities" but rather the league decides to expand by a number of teams, and seeks bidders for those teams. They decide based on financial stability of the market and the bidder, proximity to other markets, and how well the bidder would serve the BoG, among other things.

Of course then there is the unusual situation which happened in 1991. The Gund brothers had owned the California Seals, which eventually moved to Cleveland. The Cleveland franchise was failing financially, as were the North Stars, due to both teams having little on-ice success. As the North Stars were put up for sale, the league allowed the Gunds to purchase the North Stars and merge the two clubs in 1979, forming a much deeper and more successful franchise, which would reach the Finals in 1981.

In 1991, a group led by Howard Baldwin was seeking an expansion franchise in the Bay Area. After again suffering financial difficulty, the Gunds asked the league for permission to transfer the team to the Bay Area. The league sought a compromise; the Gunds would receive the Bay Area expansion team, in exchange for selling the Stars to Baldwin's group, which in the final moments of the negotiations would see a 51% majority share bought out by Norm Green. A dispersal draft between the two clubs was held, followed by an expansion draft in which both teams would select players from other teams around the league to fill out their rosters. To my knowledge, this is the only situation of this sort where two teams merged and then split apart again; as the Sharks are basically the successors to the California Seals.

/random rambling

Best post ever man. Keep up the random ramblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoenix has never been great for attendance nor have they had great success.

But this season is only the third time in the Coyotes' 13-season history that the team has averaged below 13,500 in attendance. Sure, that's not a terribly high number compared to teams like the Wings, Rangers, Canadiens, or Leafs. But for comparison? The Jets played 17 NHL seasons and only averaged ABOVE 13,500 in attendance twice.

So overall, the franchise has played 30 NHL seasons, averaging above 13,500 in attendance 12 times. Ten of those times were after the team relocated to Phoenix. Before the 1979 merger, the Jets never cleared 9,500.

So the Coyotes have had significantly more success drawing fans. As far as success, the Jets made the playoffs eleven times in 17 seasons. The Coyotes have made the playoffs six times in 13 seasons. Total playoff record for the teams is Jets 19-42 (.311), Coyotes 13-24 (.351) so as you can see, the Coyotes have also been more successful in the postseason. The Jets' regular season winning percentage is .442, which is pretty terrible. The Coyotes, OTOH, come out at .485, if you factor all shootouts as ties, and take away the extra point for non-shootout OTLs.

They haven't had a great team, but they have still provided better support than Winnipeg. Canadians like to push the "Put a team anywhere in Canada and it will be sold out every night." line. The Jets never managed that. They probably would the first couple seasons if they got a team back, but who knows what happens after that? Ottawa? Winnipeg? Vancouver? Quebec? Montreal and Toronto, sure. They've been around for 100 years and have fan bases that have been passed down through generations. The Nucks, Sens, Jets, and Nords aren't/weren't even as old as a large number, if not majority when the Nords and Jets moved, of fans of the Leafs and Habs. The Sens haven't even been around as long as 75-80% or more of Leafs or Habs fans.

And I will say it again: relocating a team is not Bettman saying "You know what, let's take this team and move it." It is the owner of the team deciding to move the team to another location. This is usually the result of a sale. The Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were sold because they were hemorrhaging money worse than the Coyotes are. The new owners already had destinations in mind, and because they followed the proper procedures for purchasing and relocating a team, there were no problems with the sales or the relocating. Expansion is a similar process. Bettman does not decide "Let's place teams in these cities" but rather the league decides to expand by a number of teams, and seeks bidders for those teams. They decide based on financial stability of the market and the bidder, proximity to other markets, and how well the bidder would serve the BoG, among other things.

Of course then there is the unusual situation which happened in 1991. The Gund brothers had owned the California Seals, which eventually moved to Cleveland. The Cleveland franchise was failing financially, as were the North Stars, due to both teams having little on-ice success. As the North Stars were put up for sale, the league allowed the Gunds to purchase the North Stars and merge the two clubs in 1979, forming a much deeper and more successful franchise, which would reach the Finals in 1981.

In 1991, a group led by Howard Baldwin was seeking an expansion franchise in the Bay Area. After again suffering financial difficulty, the Gunds asked the league for permission to transfer the team to the Bay Area. The league sought a compromise; the Gunds would receive the Bay Area expansion team, in exchange for selling the Stars to Baldwin's group, which in the final moments of the negotiations would see a 51% majority share bought out by Norm Green. A dispersal draft between the two clubs was held, followed by an expansion draft in which both teams would select players from other teams around the league to fill out their rosters. To my knowledge, this is the only situation of this sort where two teams merged and then split apart again; as the Sharks are basically the successors to the California Seals.

/random rambling

economy in Winnipeg when the Jets left was the s***s. i have lived in Winnipeg my whole life and was at the Jets farewell and i can honestly tell you that this city has changed drastically since the Jets left. it's also the pretty much on par Canadian dollar that has Canadians believing that teams can be supported. when the jets left, the dollar was s*** and it prevented a new arena from being built. the MTS centre is nice, but they need to add 3000 more seats to fund a real hockey team without sponging off the revenue sharing like the coyotes are currently doing and have been doing since revenue sharing came it to play. which begs to ask 1 question...was the lockout and salary cap era directly linked to the mistake gary bettman made expanding into non-viable hockey markets? was revenue sharing implemented because certain teams are struggling and would be forced into relocation due to exponential losses? as an NHL owner, if a portion of your revenue from your successfully run franchise was going to pay the coyotes payroll, would you not want the commissioner to explore relocation, or keep sponging and living off the big dogs dime?

bettman is an angry puppet that refuses to admit he was wrong. and where the f*** was revenue sharing to keep teams in Canada? it seems it's in place just in time to keep the struggling franchises from coming back to Canada.

stevkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

economy in Winnipeg when the Jets left was the s***s. i have lived in Winnipeg my whole life and was at the Jets farewell and i can honestly tell you that this city has changed drastically since the Jets left. it's also the pretty much on par Canadian dollar that has Canadians believing that teams can be supported. when the jets left, the dollar was s*** and it prevented a new arena from being built. the MTS centre is nice, but they need to add 3000 more seats to fund a real hockey team without sponging off the revenue sharing like the coyotes are currently doing and have been doing since revenue sharing came it to play. which begs to ask 1 question...was the lockout and salary cap era directly linked to the mistake gary bettman made expanding into non-viable hockey markets? was revenue sharing implemented because certain teams are struggling and would be forced into relocation due to exponential losses? as an NHL owner, if a portion of your revenue from your successfully run franchise was going to pay the coyotes payroll, would you not want the commissioner to explore relocation, or keep sponging and living off the big dogs dime?

bettman is an angry puppet that refuses to admit he was wrong. and where the f*** was revenue sharing to keep teams in Canada? it seems it's in place just in time to keep the struggling franchises from coming back to Canada.

You can hate on Bettman all you want, but I'll sum up what you either didn't read, didn't comprehend, or simply ignored:

Bettman does not make teams move, and Bettman does not pick the markets. It is Bettman's job to try and increase the exposure of the game to new markets and increase the revenue for the owners.

The Jets leaving was not Bettman sitting on a throne saying "Move the Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix and name them the Coyotes." It was a team being sold due to the fact it was failing financially, due largely to lack of attendance. The sale was approved by the BoG, and the new ownership group wanted to move the team to Phoenix. The move was also approved by the BoG.

As for "where the f*** was revenue sharing" and all that; you remember the lockout during the CBA negotiations in 1994-95, right? Do you know WHY there was a lockout? The league wanted a revenue-based salary cap that would include revenue sharing, while the NHLPA wanted a looser revenue sharing model. Had the cap and revenue sharing been put in place then, the Jets would probably still be in Winnipeg.

You can argue that 'Bettman was wrong' about southern teams... but plenty of teams in the south have strong, loyal fan bases. I would bet Dallas and San Jose have better fan bases than Buffalo, Vancouver, or the Islanders.

You have to remember what it takes to build a fan base. It takes some level of success by the team to build interest in the team, plus it takes time for people to become loyal to that team. A Swedish hockey fan who moves to Los Angeles won't suddenly say "I'm a Ducks" fan or "I'm a Kings" fan just because they're there. When the Devils came to New Jersey, they didn't have many hometown fans lined up right away. Most of them were Rangers fans, or Islanders fans, or Flyers fans.

Of course a bigot like yourself will ignore those statements in favor of the "Canada is better, Canada owns hockey, everyone else should pay royalties to Canada to play a great game we incorrectly claim to have invented."

miller76 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0